How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[daodao]

So Manchester is therefore seen by XC as a market worth very little in the way of connecting a major city in the North of England. A most very London-centric view of matters. Perhaps if that be the case, XC will withdraw completely in terms of service provision to such a major city, with Birmingham and Leeds being the recipients of better XC services.

Manchester-Birmingham trains could all be replaced by class 350 emus run by the LM/LNW franchise.

 

[HS2isgood]

Manchester-Birmingham trains could all be replaced by class 350 emus run by the LM/LNW franchise.

I am very much in support of this, removing the XC services into Manchester and running a LNWR/WMT electric half-hourly service on its place, via Stoke-on-Trent (Crewe being already served by HS2 North spur and the Brum-Liverpool LNWR). Maybe a stopping pattern of Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stone (1tp2h), Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Picadilly? (The hourly Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham would be cut with a second Crewe-Derby taking its path between Stoke and Crewe).

 

[LOL The Irony]

I'm not quite sure how the HS2 journey planner decides on a time for a station that doesn't exist, but it claims that currently Piccadilly to Curzon Street (to New Street?) is 1h27, which will drop to 41 minutes after Phase 2. So you'd have 45 minutes to get over to New Street to pick up a train to the SW. So probably not losing out in time for the overall journey.

That would be New Street. Indeed, Curzon St to New St is down as a 16 minute walk and could easily be supplemented by shuttle buses.

Of course, many people won't be starting in the centre of Manchester for a trip such as that. Having more stopping trains available makes connecting into a long-distance service easier.

Indeed, it offers a wider catchment area of potential passengers. Even a limited stop semi-fast would be more desirable than a pure express service.

Manchester-Birmingham trains could all be replaced by class 350 emus run by the LM/LNW franchise.

I don't think severing Manchester from the XC network is the best idea. Would keeping 1tph to the South West really hurt? It means both Macclesfield and Wilmslow keep an express service to Manchester each.

Maybe a stopping pattern of Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stone (1tp2h), Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Picadilly?

If you're only going to add one stop Between Stoke and Manchester, what's the point? At least add Kidsgrove, Poynton and Cheadle Hulme.

 

[507020]

It's true that the up platform at Formby had step-free access through the car park, but there was no easy way from the ticket office on the station bridge to the platforms for a wheelchair. The access to the down platform with a wheelchair involved walking quite a way past the station entrance and then doubling back. I did it many times with my wheelchair-bound friend, when I took him for an outing from Birkdale to Formby, and we certainly welcomed the lifts. The architectural design of the lifts at Formby was also very well done, and they are a very good match to the old L&Y building. It was money well-spent in my opinion. There were said to be issues that have delayed the building of lifts at Hillside until now, but I don't know what they were.

Formby station had and still has step free access to both platforms without using the lifts. While the route between either platform, the car park and the ticket office via the road bridge is not ideal for a wheelchair, or even to walk, surely it is still better to implement lifts first at stations that have no step free access at all, including Hillside. The architectural design of the old L&Y building on the bridge at Formby is superior than the newer LMS designed building at Hillside, including being more suitable for the addition of lifts, but Hillside was probably cheaper to build. The lifts are very welcome at Formby, especially with their impressive architectural integration into the original building, but after seeing the chaos caused by the provision made for wheelchair users arriving at the Open golf when it was held at the Royal Birkdale in 2017, it is obvious how much they are needed at Hillside.

Ramp access is never as good as a lift. My local station has a covered ramp, but even though it’s not at a ridiculous gradient, it still feels tenuous going down it.

Ramp access is not as good as lift access, but still better than access only via steps. Surely ramp access, including using an adjacent road bridge, is better for wheelchair users than not being able to use the station at all and having to make a detour of several miles to a different one. Accessible ramps should be retained as a temporary measure while lifts are provided where ramps aren’t possible, with lifts replacing ramps once all stations are already accessible.

But then you're saying all 3 could have the same if a metro service was also introduced on the line. Also trains every 30 and 20 minutes respectively doesn't sound particularly run down to me.

Hadfield & Glossop is run down as it has lost through connections to Sheffield and London Marylebone via Woodhead and the GCML. Rose Hill Marple is run down as it has lost through connections to Macclesfield and Atherton is run down as it has lost through connections to Liverpool Exchange, Bury, Rochdale avoiding Manchester and the Pemberton loop avoiding Wigan, as well as the main expresses which ran over it. I once visited Swinton station on the Atherton line in heavy rain and found that I got more water on me if I stood under the canopy than if I stood in the rain!

5tph is a train every 10 minutes (could drop to 4 during off peak) is entirely doable at Piccadilly post HS2 with signalling upgrades. My trains are turned around, including a crew swap and a light clean in under 10 minutes.

5tph is a train every 12 minutes!

We have far too many lines radiating from Manchester to incorporate them into a haevy rail metro at high enough frequency to be worthwhile.

Manchester does not have the advantage Liverpool has in terms of being relatively long-and-thin.

The City of Liverpool isn’t particularly long and thin. Large parts of Liverpool find themselves unserved following the closure of the North Liverpool Extension from Hunts Cross to Aintree. The area of the City of Manchester is particularly long and thin, stretching from Heaton Park to Manchester Airport, but being inland is then surrounded by a continuous conurbation in all directions, rather than being bounded by a river as Liverpool is.

Several did at least. I don't know what proportion of the total but they must have included most of the road-over-rail bridges. I visited the area a few times when it was under construction (it started 2013). I was surprised to see bridges demolished between visits. Here's a Google streetview of a road at Tyldesley that crosses the busway, taken in 2019, and you can turn the year back to 2015 when it was under construction, or to 2008-11 when the road was on a bridge over the former railway.

In removing these bridges, has construction of the busway not removed the possibility of the line reopening as a railway? I often make use of the ability to look at previous images on Google Street View. Given that it began in 2008, it is now a valuable historical resource. High resolution Google satellite images go back to 2000 but are only accessible from the freely downloadable Google Earth Pro application. It’s a shame neither of them go back further.

You could get a lot of Metrolink for the cost of a Picc-Vic tunnel.

You could also get a lot of trains through the Picc-Vic tunnel as opposed to Castlefield.

I did figure it would cost a lot. The alternative is to compulsory purchase land for the quadrupling of Castlefield.

They need to do this anyway. Where there is not space, if buildings are of no architectural value, demolish them. Where they are, work can be undertaken to rearrange a few bricks, keeping them looking the same but still making space for the railway.

The termination point of the actual Guided Busway at Ellenbrook still offers the opportunity to look at the former continuation of the Tyldesley loop line, as a cursory glance across the road shows the increase in land height at which the overbridge was constructed.

I suspect the only reason it terminates there was to serve Ellenbrook Primary School. There was the potential for it to go further, particularly to the junction of the East Lancs Road with the A575.

Glossop & Hadfield, Rose Hill and Atherton. In my opinion Metrolink is specifically for that purpose. Taking a line that services commuters in to Manchester and providing an all stop metro service.

In what way will people along those lines lose out? They get a better frequency, greater capacity, it will be just as fast to Piccadilly and Salford Central respectively, with better penetration of the city centre.

They will lose out in that they will be given restrictions on what they can bring onto the trams. What will passengers who frequently bring bikes and/or pets from intermediate stations on the Atherton line do? Just because you will still be able to get from Wigan via Bolton doesn’t help people in Atherton. 5tph that they can’t use isn’t better than 3tph that they can.

Ok. Hadfield and Marple seem like better options than Atherton but they're still not the most ideal. I'd say Leigh is more deserving than Atherton. I do see how Hadfield and Rose Hill Marple could work but you've got the Huddersfield stopper and the Buxton trains to deal with, so that's something to be careful of. Sharing with the rail service seems like a better interim option until HS2 arrives.

If you converted the Atherton line, you could end the rail section at the new roundabout in the middle of the Pemberton Loop, having quadrupled from Crow Nest Junction, then run trams via the dual carriageway into Wigan and build branches into Leigh and Bolton. You would just need another street running section at the other end to avoid trams going through Salford Crescent for a repeat of the Guide Bridge capacity problems if the GCR lines are converted.

I'm not quite sure how the HS2 journey planner decides on a time for a station that doesn't exist, but it claims that currently Piccadilly to Curzon Street (to New Street?) is 1h27, which will drop to 41 minutes after Phase 2. So you'd have 45 minutes to get over to New Street to pick up a train to the SW. So probably not losing out in time for the overall journey.
Of course, many people won't be starting in the centre of Manchester for a trip such as that. Having more stopping trains available makes connecting into a long-distance service easier.

For modern lines such as HS2, there’s probably some sort of computer simulation of the line following its planned alignment with trains running on it at their planned speed.

I am very much in support of this, removing the XC services into Manchester and running a LNWR/WMT electric half-hourly service on its place, via Stoke-on-Trent (Crewe being already served by HS2 North spur and the Brum-Liverpool LNWR). Maybe a stopping pattern of Birmingham New Street, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stone (1tp2h), Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Picadilly? (The hourly Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham would be cut with a second Crewe-Derby taking its path between Stoke and Crewe).

The problem with the XC services running from Birmingham to Manchester is of course that they using Voyagers on a line that has been electrified throughout for no less than 60 years.

That would be New Street. Indeed, Curzon St to New St is down as a 16 minute walk and could easily be supplemented by shuttle buses.

The walk from Curzon Street to New Street is less than 5 minutes.

 

[The Planner]

The walk from Curzon Street to New Street is less than 5 minutes.

From the front of the station to the front of the station may well be, platform to platform never in a million years.

 

[LOL The Irony]

5tph is a train every 12 minutes!

Of course! That would be 6tph, even better.

The walk from Curzon Street to New Street is less than 5 minutes.

I was using google as the measurement. I still think a shuttle bus wouldn't hurt.

I once visited Swinton station on the Atherton line in heavy rain and found that I got more water on me if I stood under the canopy than if I stood in the rain!

This appears to be a lack of maintenance rather than the running down of services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The walk from Curzon Street to New Street is less than 5 minutes.

If you have purchased a ticket for a long-distance rail journey from Manchester that currently be done as one single, direct rail-served journey, such a proposal as that for a future journey (allowing for inclement weather in Birmingham) is what I personally describe as a retrograde step.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

I once visited Swinton station on the Atherton line in heavy rain and found that I got more water on me if I stood under the canopy than if I stood in the rain!

Allow me the opportunity to update you on recent matters.

The platform canopies at both Swinton railway station and at Walkden railway station, originally built by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway between 1887 and 1888, have both recently been repaired and restored by Network Rail, as part of a £750,000 scheme that involved structural repairs and a full painting restoration, plus the installation of special netting to prevent bird roosting

 

[Purple Orange]

If you have purchased a ticket for a long-distance rail journey from Manchester that currently be done as one single, direct rail-served journey, such a proposal as that for a future journey (allowing for inclement weather in Birmingham) is what I personally describe as a retrograde step.

If it means changing train and a walk to New Street results in getting to your destination faster, then that is a positive step.

The less time spent on a train, the better.

 

[507020]

I was using google as the measurement. I still think a shuttle bus wouldn't hurt.

An extension of the street running tramway would be even better.

This appears to be a lack of maintenance rather than the running down of services.

Lack of maintenance is the other hallmark of running down, as well as a reduction in services.

If you have purchased a ticket for a long-distance rail journey from Manchester that currently be done as one single, direct rail-served journey, such a proposal as that for a future journey (allowing for inclement weather in Birmingham) is what I personally describe as a retrograde step.

That direct journey may well still be possible though, but so will a faster one on HS2, requiring a change at Birmingham. What is really needed is an M5 corridor high speed line branching off HS2 south of Birmingham, instead of everything just going towards London.

Allow me the opportunity to update you on recent matters.

The platform canopies at both Swinton railway station and at Walkden railway station, originally built by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway between 1887 and 1888, have both recently been repaired and restored by Network Rail, as part of a £750,000 scheme that involved structural repairs and a full painting restoration, plus the installation of special netting to prevent bird roosting

When I experienced heavy rain at Swinton occurred when the 142s were still running and I became aware of this last time I had the opportunity to travel on the Atherton line on a Sunday and it’s very good news. I’m sure there’s also a canopy at Atherton itself. I wonder what John Aspinall would have thought of the condition his canopies had been allowed to end up in, or that others have not survived at all. Clearly, this should have been done years ago and is only being done now to avoid another Northwich. Hopefully, given the amount of money that has recently been spent on them, these canopies will survive any potential conversion to Metrolink, after any trace of historical buildings was removed from other stations converted to Metrolink.

 

[Purple Orange]

Manchester-Birmingham trains could all be replaced by class 350 emus run by the LM/LNW franchise.

They could, but they won’t. I believe Manchester-Birmingham rollingstock won’t be changed until HS2 starts running. In the meantime we have Voyagers, which at least at present are being run as 8-car trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

They will lose out in that they will be given restrictions on what they can bring onto the trams. What will passengers who frequently bring bikes and/or pets from intermediate stations on the Atherton line do? Just because you will still be able to get from Wigan via Bolton doesn’t help people in Atherton. 5tph that they can’t use isn’t better than 3tph that they can.

I’ll be honest, it does not bother me at all that bikes and dogs can’t go on metrolink. If that is the ‘cost’ then so be it - it’s a nice to have. Metrolink has been a huge success and I expect it to make a success of the Atherton, Rose Hill & Glossop lines once they are converted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was using google as the measurement. I still think a shuttle bus wouldn't hurt.

I think we're fairly likely to see something, perhaps the current scummy road subway being turned "indoors" and fitted with a travelator more than a bus, though.

 

[Greybeard33]

They could, but they won’t. I believe Manchester-Birmingham rollingstock won’t be changed until HS2 starts running. In the meantime we have Voyagers, which at least at present are being run as 8-car trains.

XC is only able to run the Voyagers in multiple at present because the Manchester - Bristol service has been binned. XC now has only 1tph from Manchester, to Bournemouth.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If it means changing train and a walk to New Street results in getting to your destination faster, then that is a positive step.

The less time spent on a train, the better.

There are instances such as young families with young children or elderly and infirm people where that option is not one to be a good idea.

Your final comment above is most strange and one I find hard to comprehend.

 

[Purple Orange]

There are instances such as young families with young children or elderly and infirm people where that option is not one to be a good idea.

Your final comment above is most strange and one I find hard to comprehend.

And in the case of families with young children and elderly or infirm people, there will still be the option of a slower, more frequent stopping train, that purely runs on the WCML. I doubt it would be as fast as today’s XC service due to more frequent stops, but then there will be far fewer people making a list no distance journey on that service.

However we also need to remember that Birmingham city centre may not be the best place to change in a post HS2 world. If you’re travelling from north of Birmingham (either Greater Manchester or Crewe now it seems the eastern leg is being cancelled) to Oxford and points south, it would be easier to transfer at Old Oak Common.

As for being on a train, yes the less time the better. Travelling on a train and knowing there is a faster and more frequent route is anathema to me. As an example, my local route is Wilmslow-Manchester, but if I am stood at Piccadilly to go home and the train via Manchester Airport comes along, I am not going to board it because it is slower than waiting for the next service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for being on a train, yes the less time the better. Travelling on a train and knowing there is a faster and more frequent route is anathema to me. As an example, my local route is Wilmslow-Manchester, but if I am stood at Piccadilly to go home and the train via Manchester Airport comes along, I am not going to board it because it is slower than waiting for the next service.

I am glad that you clarified your previous comment with the above extract from your next posting. I had thought you previously meant that you did not like rail travel. Strange how two people can read something and draw totally different conclusions.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am glad that you clarified your previous comment with the above extract from your next posting. I had thought you previously meant that you did not like rail travel. Strange how two people can read something and draw totally different conclusions.

Well to be honest, I do not specifically like Rail travel any more than getting on a plane or a bus. It’s better than driving. To me it’s just a practical function to get around, which works best within the cities. Our long distance rail network should try to learn from our metro systems on the sense that a high capacity, high frequency service on a specific route that interacts with another high capacity, high frequency route is far more efficient.

Imagine if the Bury, Rochdale and Ashton Metrolink line each had to have a service to every line west of Cornbrook, all because people shouted “we can’t possibly change tram. I’d sooner wait 30 minutes for the direct service than get on a tram now, change at St. Peter’s Square and arrive at my destination long before the direct service”. That is madness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Imagine if the Bury, Rochdale and Ashton Metrolink line each had to have a service to every line west of Cornbrook, all because people shouted “we can’t possibly change tram. I’d sooner wait 30 minutes for the direct service than get on a tram now, change at St. Peter’s Square and arrive at my destination long before the direct service”. That is madness.

Of course with a 12 minute frequency (and alternation of destinations) a change is relatively painless. How does a 29 minute wait sound?

This of course is where Takt comes in - you recognise that it indeed isn't possible to have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere, so you design your timetable and supporting infrastructure to make those connections very smooth, almost choreographed in some cases.

 

[Purple Orange]

Of course with a 12 minute frequency (and alternation of destinations) a change is relatively painless. How does a 29 minute wait sound?

This of course is where Takt comes in - you recognise that it indeed isn't possible to have direct trains from everywhere to everywhere, so you design your timetable and supporting infrastructure to make those connections very smooth, almost choreographed in some cases.

Preaching to the converted there. The national rail network clearly won’t be able to introduce that sort of system for every route, but I believe it could for many routes.

Let’s take travelling from Manchester to Nottingham, Derby, Leicester and Reading. With Derby and Leicester we need to make a change today and nobody thinks twice about it, while nobody seems to be calling for a direct service to be created either. Nottingham and Reading have an hourly direct service. Post HS2, why wouldn’t Nottingham and Reading fall in to the same category as Derby & Leicester, given that it will be faster to change at Birmingham and Old Oak Common respectively? It will also have far more frequent services to those stations than a slower direct.

In the meantime, why keep a semi-fast service of increasingly little use on the on the classic lines, preventing a more frequent local commuter service that would benefit far more people?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==

On a more optimistic tone, one thing I’d like to see happen is the introduction of bi-mode trains of a similar standard to the 331s. They are great from a commuter perspective. 2+2 seating with walkthrough carriages is a welcome feature and if I was to be placing an order, I’d opt for 5-car EMUs and Bi-modes with 24m carriages, providing 120m trains.

 

[507020]

Preaching to the converted there. The national rail network clearly won’t be able to introduce that sort of system for every route, but I believe it could for many routes.

Let’s take travelling from Manchester to Nottingham, Derby, Leicester and Reading. With Derby and Leicester we need to make a change today and nobody thinks twice about it, while nobody seems to be calling for a direct service to be created either. Nottingham and Reading have an hourly direct service. Post HS2, why wouldn’t Nottingham and Reading fall in to the same category as Derby & Leicester, given that it will be faster to change at Birmingham and Old Oak Common respectively? It will also have far more frequent services to those stations than a slower direct.

In the meantime, why keep a semi-fast service of increasingly little use on the on the classic lines, preventing a more frequent local commuter service that would benefit far more people?

On a more optimistic tone, one thing I’d like to see happen is the introduction of bi-mode trains of a similar standard to the 331s. They are great from a commuter perspective. 2+2 seating with walkthrough carriages is a welcome feature and if I was to be placing an order, I’d opt for 5-car EMUs and Bi-modes with 24m carriages, providing 120m trains.

A Northern guard travelling over the newly laid section of track between Manchester and Stalybridge, ready to work the weekly service to Stockport and return on Saturday morning (which of course is run by a 150) told me that they are going to be putting their replacement to tender next year and that it will have to be some sort of bi-mode while they get their act together over electrification. Straight Diesels are off the menu. How much are you betting that the order goes to CAF in order to provide similarity with 195/331s for ease of crew training?

If you ask me, every single 195 and 331 in the Northern fleet needs to be extended by 1 carriage, 2 cars become 3, 3 cars become 4 and 4 cars become 5, with the only exception being for a few 3 car 331s to be retained to run in multiple where 6 car operation is desired. Where 4 car diesel operation is desired, a walk through train should be provided, rather than doubling up 2 car 195s, which should never have been built so short.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester-Birmingham trains could all be replaced by class 350 emus run by the LM/LNW franchise.

I am not well versed in franchise agreements and comparitive "last-resort" operational entities who have taken over a previous franchise under that remit, but know that whilst LM/LNW run existing services into Liverpool, but not into Manchester, is there anything in their current franchise agreement that would allow them to run such a service as you describe above on lines of existing service provision of the Northern Trains successor company which cover the more northern section of that route.

If you ask me, every single 195 and 331 in the Northern fleet needs to be extended by 1 carriage, 2 cars become 3, 3 cars become 4 and 4 cars become 5, with the only exception being for a few 3 car 331s to be retained to run in multiple where 6 car operation is desired.

What CAF construction time factor would be required for what you so describe to occur?

 

[daodao]

I am not well versed in franchise agreements and comparitive "last-resort" operational entities who have taken over a previous franchise under that remit, but know that whilst LM/LNW run existing services into Liverpool, but not into Manchester, is there anything in their current franchise agreement that would allow them to run such a service as you describe above on lines of existing service provision of the Northern Trains successor company which cover the more northern section of that route

My main point was that the current diesel Voyager trains used on the Manchester-Birmingham route should be replaced by emus suitable for longer distance journeys. The alternative operator is Northern, but the majority of the route is in the West Midlands. LM/LNW could also take over the Stoke-Manchester local service as well. An additional base/depot at Crewe/Stoke would be desirable in this case.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

LM/LNW could also take over the Stoke-Manchester local service as well. An additional base/depot at Crewe/Stoke would be desirable in this case.

Would you foresee any difficulty with that more localised service being accepted by the Northern Trains successor operator, as that was a totally Northern route run by the previous Northern franchise? Then there are the associated costs connected with the additional base/depot to which you so allude.

 

[Neptune]

A Northern guard travelling over the newly laid section of track between Manchester and Stalybridge, ready to work the weekly service to Stockport and return on Saturday morning (which of course is run by a 150) told me that they are going to be putting their replacement to tender next year and that it will have to be some sort of bi-mode while they get their act together over electrification. Straight Diesels are off the menu. How much are you betting that the order goes to CAF in order to provide similarity with 195/331s for ease of crew training?

15x replacement is on the agenda for the future but I wouldn’t take what a guard says as 100% guaranteed regarding timelines.

Bi-mode is the most likely solution if/when this happens and CAF Civity’s make the most sense as Northern want to reduce the amount of different classes within the fleet. This does indeed reduce the amount of traincrew/maintenance staff training required.

If you ask me, every single 195 and 331 in the Northern fleet needs to be extended by 1 carriage, 2 cars become 3, 3 cars become 4 and 4 cars become 5, with the only exception being for a few 3 car 331s to be retained to run in multiple where 6 car operation is desired. Where 4 car diesel operation is desired, a walk through train should be provided, rather than doubling up 2 car 195s, which should never have been built so short.

I can’t see any need for the 3 car 195’s or the 331’s to be lengthened. Long fixed formations reduce flexibility. This isn’t like Thameslink or Crossrail.

With regards the 2 car 195’s then yes I agree they are woefully under capacity for the routes they work singularly (Leeds - Nottingham for instance) however rather than build additional vehicles for these they can be used doubled up should the new bi-mode build occur.

 

[yorksrob]

Looking at the diagram of option B from a few pages back, do we really need two trains an hour from Blackpool to the Airport ? Wouldn't it be better to send one of these towards Victoria and have an extra stopper on the CLC from Liverpool to the airport ?

 

[Ianno87]

Looking at the diagram of option B from a few pages back, do we really need two trains an hour from Blackpool to the Airport ?

If it's an EMU, what do you do with it at Victoria? The whole point is to avoid terminating services in the through platforms there.

 

[yorksrob]

If it's an EMU, what do you do with it at Victoria? The whole point is to avoid terminating services in the through platforms there.

In the longer term, one would have the option of extending to Stalybridge.

However, in the short term, I would say that the issue is far less significant than losing the CLC train which doesn't have an alternative option.

Any option would be preferable:
- running a bi-mode to Stalybridge
- terminating at Victoria and facing the consequences
- installing an electrified turnback siding on Cheetham Hill viaduct

 

[Ianno87]

In the longer term, one would have the option of extending to Stalybridge.

Only if something else was kicked out of Stalybridge so it could fit in the bay platform.

However, in the short term, I would say that the issue is far less significant than losing the CLC train which doesn't have an alternative option.

Any option would be preferable:
- running a bi-mode to Stalybridge

Apart from being restricted to a 4 car Class 769 compared to a 6 car Class 331, so a loss of Bolton corridor capacity (which is more in need than the CLC route)

- terminating at Victoria and facing the consequences

Then performance will continue to be dire.

- installing an electrified turnback siding on Cheetham Hill viaduct

That means infrastructure (so not feasible for Dec 2022).

 

[yorksrob]

Only if something else was kicked out of Stalybridge so it could fit in the bay platform.



Apart from being restricted to a 4 car Class 769 compared to a 6 car Class 331, so a loss of Bolton corridor capacity (which is more in need than the CLC route)



Then performance will continue to be dire.




That means infrastructure (so not feasible for Dec 2022).

Given that they're not doing any physical infrastructure on the corridor itself, perhaps its time they bit the bullet and got this comparatively quick win done with.

Its all very well trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, but if in all of this the industry can't prioritise the installation of a siding, its really not helping itself.

Also, the diagram includes a self contained hourly service between Vic and Stalybridge, do if someone pulled their finger out and electrified to there, that service could be replaced.

 

[Moonshot]

Given that they're not doing any physical infrastructure on the corridor itself, perhaps its time they bit the bullet and got this comparatively quick win done with.

Its all very well trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, but if in all of this the industry can't prioritise the installation of a siding, its really not helping itself.

Also, the diagram includes a self contained hourly service between Vic and Stalybridge, do if someone pulled their finger out and electrified to there, that service could be replaced.

A 6 car turn back is actually on the agenda around the current brewery turn back. We have been briefed on this earlier in week

 

[yorksrob]

A 6 car turn back is actually on the agenda around the current brewery turn back. We have been briefed on this earlier in week

That's good news. It will certainly help capacity anyway. Presumably it will be electrified ?