Could we see a more intensive service through Castlefield with more electrification?

[30907]

The layout at Wigan North Western makes it extremely inconvenient to run any service through either Atherton or Westhoughton into the WCML north of there.

Agree

Furthermore, they come from long single line workings, which can transmit delays.

Which single lines, please? I can only think of Windermere (or in the other direction, parts of Altrincham-Stockport).

 

[Purple Orange]

Not enough paths, punctuality would be woeful. It's bad enough as it is. There is a reason Merseyrail is segregated and simple.

Tram train won't include the two expresses. It would be the "Merseyrail meets Metrolink" concept with tram train used purely so the freights can still run to Trafford Park.

This is why my point about such a network couldn’t be implemented until we actually have seen infrastructure built, such as P15 & 16, HS2 & NPR, tram-train of the Atherton line etc.

I wasn't sure if they were extensions to Blackpool, as you have 4tph vs today's 2tph. I think the Bolton/Chorley corridor could stand 6tph.

But in any case, I completely agree with you. And as I often bang on about, I would add the South Wales service into Victoria too. Gives 3tph to WBQ (to help CLC changes in future), opens up Victoria-Crewe as a connection, and removes a 2-4 car diesel path from Picc-Stockport-Crewe, which could be an 8-car semi-fast EMU to Crewe/Birmingham instead, or a 6 car EMU to Alderley Edge. Or maybe a Sheffield at a push, but preferably an electric, longer service.

Yes the south manc lines need to be cleared of 3-car DMUs. That said, there are a lot of 3 & 4 car EMUs too. I fully agree about South Wales in to Victoria.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes the south manc lines need to be cleared of 3-car DMUs. That said, there are a lot of 3 & 4 car EMUs too. I fully agree about South Wales in to Victoria.

And send the 3-car DMUs instead on a dog-leg via Warrington, with even more mileage under the wires? Via the already congested two track stretch of the WCML through the Weaver Valley? Adding to the excessive number of services into Victoria from the west, to the detriment of local services?

No, just no.

 

[Purple Orange]

And send the 3-car DMUs instead on a dog-leg via Warrington, with even more mileage under the wires? Via the already congested two track stretch of the WCML through the Weaver Valley? Adding to the excessive number of services into Victoria from the west, to the detriment of local services?

No, just no.

Or stop the South Wales service at more stations between Crewe & Piccadilly. It already stops at every one horse town.

 

[daodao]

Or stop the South Wales service at more stations between Crewe & Piccadilly. It already stops at every one horse town.

If the Manchester-South Wales service called additionally at Handforth, it would be possible to withdraw the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service and still leave all stations (bar Chelford and Goostrey) on the Manchester-Stockport-Crewe line with 2 tph to Manchester.

 

[Purple Orange]

If the Manchester-South Wales service called additionally at Handforth, it would be possible to withdraw the separate 1 tph Manchester-Alderley Edge service and still leave all stations (bar Chelford and Goostrey) on the Manchester-Stockport-Crewe line with 2 tph to Manchester.

There would be no point in changing anything if it resulted in no change in frequency, unless you’re referring to the service via the airport, which is useless to anyone travelling to Wilmslow and stations south of it.

The thing about the South Wales service is that it crawls along between Wilmslow & Stockport, therefore whenever I have caught the service from Wilmslow, I’ve often wondered whether it would be worth stopping at Cheadle Hulme for instance.

 

[daodao]

I’ve often wondered whether it would be worth stopping at Cheadle Hulme for instance.

Handforth would be more useful as Cheadle Hulme is also served by the Stoke to Manchester stopping service. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service would free up an additional path on this line.

 

[Purple Orange]

Handforth would be more useful as Cheadle Hulme is also served by the Stoke to Manchester stopping service. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service would free up an additional path on this line.

But then you should probably think about building a new railway line in to Manchester, if capacity is a problem

 

[Greybeard33]

Handforth would be more useful as Cheadle Hulme is also served by the Stoke to Manchester stopping service. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service would free up an additional path on this line.

Withdrawal of the Alderley Edge service would leave Cheadle Hulme with a 50 minute gap between its remaining two services to Manchester. Totally unsatisfactory.

 

[Purple Orange]

Withdrawal of the Alderley Edge service would leave Cheadle Hulme with a 50 minute gap between its remaining two services to Manchester. Totally unsatisfactory.

If anything, Cheadle Hulme should see another 2 tph. The catchment area of the station is such that it could sustain far more than 3 trains per hour.

 

[daodao]

If anything, Cheadle Hulme should see another 2 tph. The catchment area of the station is such that it could sustain far more than 3 trains per hour.

I am not convinced about increasing the public transport offering in the affluent North Cheshire suburbs close to or within Greater Manchester because usage is fairly low and can't easily be encouraged. It is much more beneficial to invest in public transport in the more deprived parts of the conurbation.

Within the last few years, the weekday bus service from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester has been reduced from 4 per hour to 1 per hour. A service of 2 tph from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester should suffice, but clearly it would be better if they are at half-hourly intervals, and I accept that adjusting timetables to achieve this would not be straightforward.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am not convinced about increasing the public transport offering in the affluent North Cheshire suburbs close to or within Greater Manchester because usage is fairly low and can't easily be encouraged. It is much more beneficial to invest in public transport in the more deprived parts of the conurbation.

Within the last few years, the weekday bus service from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester has been reduced from 4 per hour to 1 per hour. 2 tph from Cheadle Hulme to Manchester should suffice, but clearly it would be better if they are at half-hourly intervals, and I accept that adjusting timetables to achieve this would not be straightforward.

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

 

[daodao]

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

Why?

 

[Purple Orange]

Why?

Reasons for increasing frequency at Cheadle Hulme to Manchester Piccadilly:

1. It’s circa 8 miles from the city centre, with a relatively high density and relatively affluent population. Prime commuter territory.
2. Increased frequency has been proven time and time again, to be a huge driver in increasing patronage. Look at the success of the Altrincham and Bury lines on metrolink. In fact those lines serve similar areas at a similar distance to the city centre.
3. Reducing frequency will result in more cars on the A34, adding to congestion in central Manchester. Greater Manchester is a metropolitan city that needs to encourage greater public transport usage and less car usage.
4. Bus services from Cheadle Hulme and the wider Cheadle area aren’t a comparable measure to rail.
5. If you want to improve the inner city frequencies, you can run a train starting further out, such as Alderley Edge.
6. Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Handforth, Bramhall and Poynton could easily support an addition service for the same reasons outlined above.

 

[daodao]

Reasons for increasing frequency at Cheadle Hulme to Manchester Piccadilly:

1. It’s circa 8 miles from the city centre, with a relatively high density and relatively affluent population. Prime commuter territory.
2. Increased frequency has been proven time and time again, to be a huge driver in increasing patronage. Look at the success of the Altrincham and Bury lines on metrolink. In fact those lines serve similar areas at a similar distance to the city centre.
3. Reducing frequency will result in more cars on the A34, adding to congestion in central Manchester. Greater Manchester is a metropolitan city that needs to encourage greater public transport usage and less car usage.
4. Bus services from Cheadle Hulme and the wider Cheadle area aren’t a comparable measure to rail.
5. If you want to improve the inner city frequencies, you can run a train starting further out, such as Alderley Edge.
6. Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Handforth, Bramhall and Poynton could easily support an addition service for the same reasons outlined above.

City centre commuting is on the decline, prompted over the longer-term by the increased dispersal of offices and other work locations to places only easily accessible by road. This trend is likely to be accelerated by working from home precipitated by the Covid crisis, and I don't expect a full return to office working. I do accept that the train service from Bramhall/Poynton to Manchester is sparse at 1 tph, although there is an additional peak service. However, it is noticeable that the peak train service from Bramhall/Poynton to Manchester has declined over the years - in 1963 (pre-electrification) the LM region timetable (available at Timetable World) shows that there were 5 tph arriving at Piccadilly from these stations between 8 am and 9 am and 5 tph departing between 5 pm and 6 pm on weekdays. I am not convinced that low density suburbs in outer southern Manchester/north Cheshire beyond the historic tram termini at Altrincham/Parrs Wood/Hazel Grove warrant frequent suburban train services in excess of 2 tph. When I lived in Macclesfield from 2005-2015 I occasionally used the stopping service from Prestbury to Manchester in peak hours to go to meetings, and the trains were not full south of Stockport. The Altrincham and Bury lines serve more densely populated areas.

 

[Purple Orange]

City centre commuting is on the decline, prompted over the longer-term by the increased dispersal of offices and other work locations to places only easily accessible by road. This trend is likely to be accelerated by working from home precipitated by the Covid crisis, and I don't expect a full return to office working. I do accept that the train service from Bramhall/Poynton to Manchester is sparse at 1 tph, although there is an additional peak service. However, it is noticeable that the peak train service from Bramhall/Poynton to Manchester has declined over the years - in 1963 (pre-electrification) the LM region timetable (available at Timetable World) shows that there were 5 tph arriving at Piccadilly from these stations between 8 am and 9am and departing between 5 pm and 6 pm on weekdays. I am not convinced that low density suburbs in outer southern Manchester beyond the historic tram termini at Altrincham/Parrs Wood/Hazel Grove warrant frequent suburban trains services in excess of 2 tph. The Altrincham and Bury lines serve more densely populated areas.

The only reason for not increasing frequency is because there is no spare capacity today. City centre commuting will actually be increasing over the medium term due to the constant growth in office demand we have seen during the pandemic. All the pointers suggest the opposite of what you believe you are seeing.

 

[daodao]

City centre commuting will actually be increasing over the medium term due to the constant growth in office demand we have seen during the pandemic.

Pull the other one. It's not what TOCs elsewhere in the UK are envisaging, judging by proposed future timetables elsewhere, e.g. that of Scotrail or SWR. For SWR, see discussion at:
SWR December 2022 Timetable Consultation | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

TfGM should not be subsidising additional train services to Handforth/Wilmslow/Alderley Edge/Poynton/Knutsford as these places are outwith the Greater Manchester boundary. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service will cut costs.

 

[Purple Orange]

Pull the other one. It's not what TOCs elsewhere in the UK are envisaging, judging by proposed future timetables elsewhere, e.g. that of Scotrail or SWR. For SWR, see discussion at:
SWR December 2022 Timetable Consultation | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

TfGM should not be subsidising additional train services to Handforth/Wilmslow/Alderley Edge/Poynton/Knutsford as these places are outwith the Greater Manchester boundary. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service will cut costs.

You're talking about the here and now, where there is zero capacity to increase the services anyway and can only be done post HS2. I'm talking about the potential of the area being a place that can sustain far more than its current provision.

Plus what has TfGM got to do with it?

Cutting services is a stupid idea, to be blunt with you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're talking about the here and now, where there is zero capacity to increase the services anyway and can only be done post HS2. I'm talking about the potential of the area being a place that can sustain far more than its current provision.

Plus what has TfGM got to do with it?

Cutting services is a stupid idea, to be blunt with you.

Cutting services is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Cutting services over Castlefield is for example necessary (unless we go for the Thameslink style operation this thread proposes).

However I would agree that the TfW service is primarily a long distance regional express and should not be being used as a Manchester commuter service as a primary role.

 

[Purple Orange]

Cutting services is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Cutting services over Castlefield is for example necessary (unless we go for the Thameslink style operation this thread proposes).

However I would agree that the TfW service is primarily a long distance regional express and should not be being used as a Manchester commuter service as a primary role.

Cutting services through castlefield certainly, but not the whole service. I.e. splitting Southport-Alderley Edge or terminating one of the TPEs at Vic instead.

 

[Greybeard33]

TfGM should not be subsidising additional train services to Handforth/Wilmslow/Alderley Edge/Poynton/Knutsford as these places are outwith the Greater Manchester boundary. Withdrawal of the separate 1 tph Manchester-Stockport-Alderley Edge service will cut costs.

TfGM/GMCA does not subsidise any rail services. Subsidies to all Northern services come from HMT via the DfT and are funded from general UK taxation/borrowing.

 

[Purple Orange]

TfGM/GMCA does not subsidise any rail services. Subsidies to all Northern services come from HMT via the DfT and are funded from general UK taxation/borrowing.

I suspect dao doesn't care about that; someone who strikes me as an individual who is ideoligically driven by low taxation, rather than considering that public services and particularly investment in good public transport can stimulate economic growth.

 

[daodao]

TfGM/GMCA does not subsidise any rail services. Subsidies to all Northern services come from HMT via the DfT and are funded from general UK taxation/borrowing.

Thank you for the clarification.

@ Purple Orange. I do support selective investment in public transport, and accept the need for some subsidy, particularly where there are social benefits in more deprived areas. For example, I have stated on this forum that I welcome the electrification of the Lostock Junction to Wigan NW line and support re-introduction of passenger trains from Newport along the Ebbw valley to Abertillery. I have also advocated frequency improvements on the ex-GC lines to SE Manchester by conversion to Metrolink. I just don't think that public transport investment/subsidy is warranted in the affluent southern edges of Greater Manchester.

 

[Purple Orange]

I just don't think that public transport investment/subsidy is warranted in the affluent southern edges of Greater Manchester.

And on that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[cle]

Those people (the affluent South Manchester-ers, and urban Cheshires) pay taxes, so why is it subsidy - they should get a share of investment - and need to commute to work.

If anything, we should be pushing for modal shift to get people out of cars. Likely to be higher polluting and single occupied. If the train was good (fast/frequent/easy) - more would take it. That is worth investing in, moreso than making it easier for people in Leeds or Liverpool to commute to Manchester in 30 mins. The airport line and the lines to Crewe and Stoke and Hazel Grove, and out to Knutsford at least, should have a minimum of 3tph for all local stops.

And the Met has served more inner, less affluent areas of Manchester (plus Chorlton/Didsbury too yes) - commuter rail is needed for the outer reaches.

 

[Gareth]

And modal shift should involve significantly improving public transport via investment in infrastructure and subsidy to ensure it remains competitive ticket-wise to potential users.

The British attitude seems to be to simply force people onto public transport by making driving more of a ball ache.

 

[Purple Orange]

Those people (the affluent South Manchester-ers, and urban Cheshires) pay taxes, so why is it subsidy - they should get a share of investment - and need to commute to work.

If anything, we should be pushing for modal shift to get people out of cars. Likely to be higher polluting and single occupied. If the train was good (fast/frequent/easy) - more would take it. That is worth investing in, moreso than making it easier for people in Leeds or Liverpool to commute to Manchester in 30 mins. The airport line and the lines to Crewe and Stoke and Hazel Grove, and out to Knutsford at least, should have a minimum of 3tph for all local stops.

And the Met has served more inner, less affluent areas of Manchester (plus Chorlton/Didsbury too yes) - commuter rail is needed for the outer reaches.

This. Priority through manchester city centre needs to be taken away from long distance services, but frequency improvements wont be seen until there is actual new infrastructure built.