Does Saltburn deserve a TPE service when other lines could be served instead?

[VideozVideoz]

The issue with Buxton is capacity in Manchester, not that it doesn't deserve that service. It's an unfair comparison. Saltburn is at the end of the line and is a natural location to spin trains. Going back to curtail services at Middlesbrough will be difficult given the London services due to begin so further capacity constraints. May as well provide a direct service to York for those in Saltburn and vice versa - especially as domestic tourism has risen.

Pre-pandemic, Buxton was given a half-hourly service to Manchester. That lasted a couple of years and there’s no plans for it to return, even in the proposed Dec 2022 timetable

 

[507020]

Pre-pandemic, Buxton was given a half-hourly service to Manchester. That lasted a couple of years and there’s no plans for it to return, even in the proposed Dec 2022 timetable

The issue of 2tph to Buxton could be solved by extending the Diesel service from Southport to Piccadilly to the unelectrified Buxton instead of the electrified Alderley Edge and running it in addition to the present hourly Buxton service, giving better connectivity to both Southport and Buxton and better stock utilisation.

 

[Greybeard33]

Pre-pandemic, Buxton was given a half-hourly service to Manchester. That lasted a couple of years and there’s no plans for it to return, even in the proposed Dec 2022 timetable

The draft December 2022 timetable has paths for a half-hourly service from Piccadilly to Buxton, and indeed Buxton is planned to get 2tph in the morning and evening peaks. But Northern is proposing, in the current consultation, to turn back every other service at Hazel Grove in off-peak hours, presumably because 1tph is considered sufficient to meet demand east of Hazel Grove.

This is not comparable with TPE to Saltburn. Unlike Middlesbrough, Hazel Grove has adequate capacity to terminate services from Manchester, so there is no operational imperative to extend them all to Buxton.

 

[darloscott]

Just found this thread but as I now live in Redcar I have made good use of TPE’s extended service, though it was meant to go to Saltburn from the start. Unfortunately the much noted troublesome timetable over the Pennines saw the Middlesbrough & Newcastle(?) services swapped in one direction which meant the layover at Middlesbrough became 40 mins not 70, so the furthest they could hit was Redcar and not Saltburn. This has been rectified next December presumably with an additional diagram thrown in (and presumably part funded by our mayor!). It opens up much needed local connectivity but also I suspect TPE may find it opens up Saltburn as a tourist resort to people from Yorkshire and beyond with no/less changes (and cheaper fares). Redcar doesn’t really have this pull, whereas Saltburn will.
I believe there are aspirations to increase the Darlington to Saltburn frequency to every 15, maybe even every 10, minutes in the future - though this obviously requires the huge changes at Darlington to enable this to happen. The Bishop Auckland bit will be the awkward one to solve as it’s almost exactly an hour out & back from Darlington giving zero layover time should it be split and shoved on its own.

 

[Spaceflower]

I would argue that the Saltburn - Darlington service should be kept at 2 tph. It is useful to go via Darlington from Middlesbrough - Newcastle, as it takes the same time (including changing) as via the pitifully slow Durham Coast.

So why increase the inconvenience by funnelling millions into turning a simple and cosy one platform interchange into a ten minute walk? That remodelling should surely come under further scrutiny given both the current trend in pax numbers and the relative numbers of passengers actually using Darlington - compared to say Durham - a station with half the number of trains. The facts speak for themselves.

I'm in favour of an x shape pattern involving a fast Tyne-Tees link via Stockton and Stillington and a (possibly Newcastle) -Sunderland - York route. This would further undermine the Boro- Darlo-Bishop line which could probably drop down to a simple hourly through service thereby solving the conflicts and preserving Darlingtons integrity in a much simpler and cheaper fashion. Saltburn/Whitby line frequencies can maintain current frequencies.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Dec 2021 ==

TBH, The new London trains are going to reduce the need to change at Darlington even further. Spurious isn't the word for that Darlo remodelling proposal.

<tin hat time.

 

[HST43257]

4tph all stations (even those proposed in Tees Valley Metro) Darlington to Saltburn is possible to work with some faster services.

I believe Saltburn has a lot to offer, which is why I’d also add a fast service via the Durham Coast and Tyne Valley, alongside my hopes for Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear heavy rail service (It does work)

 

[backontrack]

Without wishing to deprive Saltburn folk of a decent train service (and I've never lived in the area), does this line justify three trains an hour, especially when other lines in England are due to suffer long-term service reductions (i.e. not just Covid-related)? Examples would be Buxton, the Atherton line and Salisbury - Yeovil Jn, while services elsewhere are suffering from overcrowding.

Does Saltburn on its own deserve 3tph? Probably not.

Together with Marske, however, I think you can justify that level of service.

 

[Meole]

The question is could the subsidy required by the Saltburn service be better utilised in a more populated part of the country ?

 

[HST43257]

The question is could the subsidy required by the Saltburn service be better utilised in a more populated part of the country ?

Ok instead of Man Airport to Saltburn let’s do Wilmslow via Man Airport to Middlesborough

 

[LittleAH]

The question is could the subsidy required by the Saltburn service be better utilised in a more populated part of the country ?

Given the money is coming from Teesside, I don't think they'll like their money being spent elsewhere.