Should TfW ditch the 230s and buy more 197s?

[A0]

I'm agree TFW should order 4 more 197's until merseytravel get the battery 777 units running, them they can run on the borderlands line. The customers want a Wrexham-liverpool service which only the 777 units can give on this line.

Not that many people want or need to travel between Liverpool and Wrexham via the Borderlands Line - equally there appears to be no journey time saving compared to travelling via Chester. And then you're taking up a path under the Mersey - are there any free paths? And if not who loses out? Chester or West Kirby ? Both of which will have far greater demand for travel into Liverpool than Wrexham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is the perfect route for the Class 230. All that is needed is that the number of TINs per period drops from 2 or 3 to 0 or 1 and nobody would complain.

Yep. Well, that and tweak the timetable for the fact that the door operation is slower than 150s, which causes loss of the odd sloppy minute here and there. My only issue with them is reliability - with three of them there and the spare at Bletchley, once staffing is sorted, cancellations should really be very, very rare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2021 ==

Not that many people want or need to travel between Liverpool and Wrexham via the Borderlands Line - equally there appears to be no journey time saving compared to travelling via Chester. And then you're taking up a path under the Mersey - are there any free paths? And if not who loses out? Chester or West Kirby ? Both of which will have far greater demand for travel into Liverpool than Wrexham.

I don't think it is really about Wrexham itself, but more about Shotton and the stations on the Wirral between there and Liverpool, which are very similar to other bits of Merseyrail and really do justify the same level of service as other Merseyrail stations get. Heswall is considerably bigger than Ormskirk, and Neston is about the same size as Formby.

South of Shotton it is a country branch line. I can certainly see a case for an Ormskirk or Kirkby style solution, i.e. at least 2tph of Merseyrail to Shotton but then hourly (or even 2 hourly) diesels south of it.

 

[A0]

I don't think it is really about Wrexham itself, but more about Shotton and the stations on the Wirral between there and Liverpool, which are very similar to other bits of Merseyrail and really do justify the same level of service as other Merseyrail stations get. Heswall is considerably bigger than Ormskirk, and Neston is about the same size as Formby.

South of Shotton it is a country branch line. I can certainly see a case for an Ormskirk or Kirkby style solution, i.e. at least 2tph of Merseyrail to Shotton but then hourly (or even 2 hourly) diesels south of it.

You haven't addressed the small issue of *capacity* - the loop is already handling a train every 5 minutes with the current Chester, West Kirby, New Brighton and Ellesmere Port services.

Shotton's a red herring - currently it's just as quick to travel via Chester with better frequencies. Currently Shotton only gets about 220,000 users and that's with both Wrexham trains and North Wales Coast - Manchester trains. Hardly huge demand.

On Neston, I think most people are already using Hooton instead which is only 4 miles away - the usage figures are Neston ~40k, Hooton ~800k. And before you say, "but it's 4 miles away" there are loads of places where a town's station is 4 miles away from large parts of the town it purports to serve and it doesn't impact those either.

 

[wobman]

Not that many people want or need to travel between Liverpool and Wrexham via the Borderlands Line - equally there appears to be no journey time saving compared to travelling via Chester. And then you're taking up a path under the Mersey - are there any free paths? And if not who loses out? Chester or West Kirby ? Both of which will have far greater demand for travel into Liverpool than Wrexham.

So Why are merseytravel wanting the route then ?
The WAG and merseytravel want direct services from the Wrexham-Bidston line to Liverpool, it would promote more people to use the service.
There's a station being built at deeside industrial estate to add the connectivity, that would help investment into Wales as well

Merseytravel propose some retimings so the borderlands service would connect / couple to a west Kirby set at Bidston to enable the working around the Liverpool loop. There's some intriguing plans for the services and using new 777 units on the route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You haven't addressed the small issue of *capacity* - the loop is already handling a train every 5 minutes with the current Chester, West Kirby, New Brighton and Ellesmere Port services.

The Loop does have the capacity to add more trains. I don't know what the signalling can currently do, but as built it was signalled for 30tph i.e. one every two minutes. Faster acceleration of the 777s compared to 507/508s might well improve that a bit further.

Shotton's a red herring - currently it's just as quick to travel via Chester with better frequencies. Currently Shotton only gets about 220,000 users and that's with both Wrexham trains and North Wales Coast - Manchester trains. Hardly huge demand.

Shotton is just a logical place to turn it around, Heswall less so. It's also a bit of a dump, so like Skem a good quality rail service to Liverpool would bring regeneration benefits.

On Neston, I think most people are already using Hooton instead which is only 4 miles away - the usage figures are Neston ~40k, Hooton ~800k. And before you say, "but it's 4 miles away" there are loads of places where a town's station is 4 miles away from large parts of the town it purports to serve and it doesn't impact those either.

If you used that basis you'd close half of Merseyrail. No need for a station at Ormskirk, after all, they'll just drive to Maghull North.

 

[A0]

The Loop does have the capacity to add more trains. I don't know what the signalling can currently do, but as built it was signalled for 30tph i.e. one every two minutes. Faster acceleration of the 777s compared to 507/508s might well improve that a bit further.

Not just the loop though is it ? You've got a junction at Birkenhead Hamilton Sq heading towards Liverpool which is on the flat. That's currently taking a train every 6 mins from the Chester / Ellesmere line and every 10 mins from the New Brighton / West Kirby line. As we've seen with Thameslink at St Pancras it doesn't take very much of a delay for that kind of dovetailing to start to cause problems. So once again, is it feasible to increase from 12 tph over that junction ? Thameslink is doing 14 at the junction just north of St Pancras which is also on the level heading southbound - and that has the benefit that the services then get dispersed once they're clear of Blackfriars, whereas these would just go around the loop causing knock on delays all over the network.

If you used that basis you'd close half of Merseyrail. No need for a station at Ormskirk, after all, they'll just drive to Maghull North.

Silly comparison - because those are neighbouring stations *on the same line*, so serving both of those isn't creating a capacity issue further up the line. Whereas trying to send Wrexham trains through to Liverpool *does* create a capacity issue further down the line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not just the loop though is it ? You've got a junction at Birkenhead Hamilton Sq heading towards Liverpool which is on the flat. That's currently taking a train every 6 mins from the Chester / Ellesmere line and every 10 mins from the New Brighton / West Kirby line. As we've seen with Thameslink at St Pancras it doesn't take very much of a delay for that kind of dovetailing to start to cause problems. So once again, is it feasible to increase from 12 tph over that junction ? Thameslink is doing 14 at the junction just north of St Pancras which is also on the level heading southbound - and that has the benefit that the services then get dispersed once they're clear of Blackfriars, whereas these would just go around the loop causing knock on delays all over the network.

You can disagree if you like, but I am confident that it could accommodate an additional say 2tph.

Silly comparison - because those are neighbouring stations *on the same line*, so serving both of those isn't creating a capacity issue further up the line. Whereas trying to send Wrexham trains through to Liverpool *does* create a capacity issue further down the line.

No, it doesn't. The Loop has plenty of capacity. How does LU cope, for instance?

 

[A0]

You can disagree if you like, but I am confident that it could accommodate an additional say 2tph.

Until somebody like @The Planner comes along and confirms it is possible and won't cause problems, I'll remain sceptical. On the grounds he knows what he's talking about.

No, it doesn't. The Loop has plenty of capacity. How does LU cope, for instance?

By generally running a much simpler network with the same stopping patterns and frequencies.

The Underground line with the highest frequency ~ every 2 mins is the Victoria Line - that's a simple end to end line with no junctions.

The Bakerloo Line ~24 tph, 1 train every 2.5 mins again a simple end to end line, no junctions.

When you start looking at the more complex lines with pinch point junctions then the frequencies start to drop.

 

[The Planner]

What's the exam question here, before I invoice you all for £600 a day?

 

[Gareth]

The junction at Hamilton Square is fully grade-separated. The work was done with the loop & link modernisation in the 1970s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Sep 2021 ==

What's the exam question here, before I invoice you all for £600 a day?

Can the Wirral line loop handle more than the existing 14tph?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Far be it for me to deprive @The Planner of his very reasonable day rate, but https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ool-City-Region-Strategic-Rail-Study-2020.pdf concludes that 2tph each way on Wrexham-Liverpool could be accommodated on the loop line - it's there in the 2043 ITSS. The main issue it identifies is crowding at Liverpool Central.

 

[AM9]

Not just the loop though is it ? You've got a junction at Birkenhead Hamilton Sq heading towards Liverpool which is on the flat. That's currently taking a train every 6 mins from the Chester / Ellesmere line and every 10 mins from the New Brighton / West Kirby line. As we've seen with Thameslink at St Pancras it doesn't take very much of a delay for that kind of dovetailing to start to cause problems. So once again, is it feasible to increase from 12 tph over that junction ? Thameslink is doing 14 at the junction just north of St Pancras which is also on the level heading southbound - and that has the benefit that the services then get dispersed once they're clear of Blackfriars, whereas these would just go around the loop causing knock on delays all over the network. ...

Actually Thameslink core doesn't often have issues with delays, - it did after the full service was introduced in 2018 but that was an issue with availability of drivers, most of the problems now are external to it. The loop isn't operationally that different to the core as all trains just pass around it as if it were a through route. Just imagine if all West Kirby/New Brighton trains balanced out the Chester/Ellesmere Port services. It might then be beneicial to run in from one branch round the loop and then out to the other. That would mean 5 stations with the combined tph of the branches. Thameslink has four stations in the core common to all feeder line densities. Hamilton Square has a burrowing exit for down West Kirby/New Brighton trains so there are no flat junctions like Thameslink which has one south of Blackfriars. Hamilton Square even has an extra platform there which many claimed the core needed to work.

 

[Whistler40145]

The 230s are a make do and mend situation

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 230s are a make do and mend situation

The two main TOCs that have used them (I'll ignore IoW as it is a different situation) have used them because they need something for about 10 years before a proper solution, be that East West Rail or Merseyrail.

 

[A0]

The junction at Hamilton Square is fully grade-separated. The work was done with the loop & link modernisation in the 1970s.

Correct - heading *out* of Liverpool. But heading TO Liverpool you have the Chester line and the Kirby / New Brighton lines converging on the level. Currently that junction is handling 12tph - is it capable of handling another 2 ? And what would the knock on be around the Merseyrail Chester / Kirby / New Brighton lines of trying to send 2 tph from the Wrexham line there ?

 

[The Planner]

A converging junction is better than a conflict. Hamilton Sq around the loop works on a 2 minute headway so it will likely work and the previous noted work seems to agree. Its a performance risk but adding trains in anywhere does that.

 

[wobman]

As previously mentioned the 230's were planned as a quick fix short term solution, there introduction would also free up 2 x 150's for other routes. The initial plan was 3 x 230's on the borderlands, 1 X on the Conwy valley line and 1 X Crewe to Chester service.

That's all changed very soon once the logistics of the routes concerned, so the all 5 X 230's were planned for the borderlands line.

But none of this has happened and it's been over 2 years now and counting, of the 4 X 230's available only 2 are usable. The 2 in question failed to run this week on test / training as planned.

Adding an extra 3 x 197's would be a better and far cheaper option for TFW, no microfleet / no new depot to build / no extra maintenance contract to pay / huge savings on parts / less traincrew training etc etc

Eventually 777 units are destined on the line, it's a route with huge untapped potential.

 

[A0]

A converging junction is better than a conflict. Hamilton Sq around the loop works on a 2 minute headway so it will likely work and the previous noted work seems to agree. Its a performance risk but adding trains in anywhere does that.

Fair enough - so it may be feasible, it's whether it's worth doing.

I'd have thought extending Kirkby services to Wigan or even Ormskirk services to Preston would have been more remunerative than trying to send Wrexham line services round the Wirral loop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough - so it may be feasible, it's whether it's worth doing.

I'd have thought extending Kirkby services to Wigan or even Ormskirk services to Preston would have been more remunerative than trying to send Wrexham line services round the Wirral loop.

It isn't necessarily one or the other, and the decision is not solely on whether it is "remunerative".

 

[A0]

It isn't necessarily one or the other, and the decision is not solely on whether it is "remunerative".

Well it should be - otherwise there isn't a viable business case. And whilst Murkeyside and the Welsh Assembly might like spending money like a sailor on shore leave that money has to come from somewhere - such authorities seem to be very good at spending other people's money and complaining loudly when those other people start asking questions.

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that the topic of this thread is Should TfW ditch the 230s and buy more 197s?

I've moved some posts that were discussing the general issue of taxation vs subsidy to a new thread which can be found here.

thanks

 

[XAM2175]

... the Welsh Assembly ...

The Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament, now.