Northern Service Reductions from 4th Jan 2022

[Starmill]

Yes, but the Chester line is (predominantly) crewed from the Piccadilly end, with traincrew stuck at Piccadilly with no trains to pass to Stockport. 'Approved' taxis will likely be in short supply.

Whereas the Buxton line is crewed from both ends and thus it's possible to run a shuttle crewed from the Buxton end.

Is the line between Chester and Altrincham even clear? It wasn't earlier...

 

[LOL The Irony]

Is the line between Chester and Altrincham even clear? It wasn't earlier...

According to National Rail it is

 

[Moonshot]

It has been confirmed internally by one of the Northern Directors that the current timetable will be in place until May. I guess that gives time to actually assess what sort of service is going to be needed in the longer term. Which to me would see some services permanently binned.

 

[yorksrob]

It has been confirmed internally by one of the Northern Directors that the current timetable will be in place until May. I guess that gives time to actually assess what sort of service is going to be needed in the longer term. Which to me would see some services permanently binned.

Good luck assessing Huddersfield - Castleford when they aren't running any trains on it.

 

[Moonshot]

Good luck assessing Huddersfield - Castleford when they aren't running any trains on it.

Obviously not me assessing it. But the clued in opinion is bracing itself for this potential problem. Let's just hope there is a surge in passenger numbers in the meantime

 

[yorksrob]

Obviously not me assessing it. But the clued in opinion is bracing itself for this potential problem. Let's just hope there is a surge in passenger numbers in the meantime

There already has been on Northern, who have recovered more than most other operators, however I suspect the treasury are more interested in the money.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Sorry for any confusion.

The strike vote is ostensibly about Covid measures the company refused to bring in, And the related issue of imposing a reduced timetable without consultation.

ASLEF withdrew RDW, independent of any strike vote that is ongoing.
ASLEF also withdrew cooperation for any movement from linked job times independent of any strike vote that is ongoing.

Not entirely true.

The withdrawal of rest day working was to do with lack of Covid safety measures, as the Aslef notice attached shows.

Spoiler

Pictures shows Asled notice saying that Rest Day Workingis being withdrawn due to Northern not imposing Covid safety measures

 

[ChrisC]

Good luck assessing Huddersfield - Castleford when they aren't running any trains on it.

I think the same can be said for Sheffield - Gainsborough Central. It may not seem an important route but the consequence is that Sheffield to Lincoln trains have to continue to call at all stations between Sheffield and Worksop.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the same can be said for Sheffield - Gainsborough Central. It may not seem an important route but the consequence is that Sheffield to Lincoln trains have to continue to call at all stations between Sheffield and Worksop.

I assume it's quite a drop in frequency as well.

 

[Moonshot]

Not entirely true.

The withdrawal of rest day working was to do with lack of Covid safety measures, as the Aslef notice attached shows.

Spoiler

Pictures shows Asled notice saying that Rest Day Workingis being withdrawn due to Northern not imposing Covid safety measures

So basically they were saying the mess rooms were not safe when drivers were working a rest day but they were when working a normal shift?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2022 ==

There already has been on Northern, who have recovered more than most other operators, however I suspect the treasury are more interested in the money.

The money side of it is a point being stressed by the regional management team......to quote ....." There is a significant hole in revenue" .

 

[ChrisC]

I assume it's quite a drop in frequency as well.

In addition to slowing down the Sheffield to Lincoln service it also means only 1tph between Sheffield, Worksop, Retford and Gainsborough. To be fair, that’s all it ever was until just under 3 years ago when the hourly Sheffield to Gainsborough Central was introduced. Sadly it lasted only a few months before it was withdrawn with the Covid service reductions, so therefore never had the opportunity to build up passenger numbers.

I believe the original purpose of it was to increase capacity between Sheffield and Worksop/Retford whilst also speeding up the Lincoln trains. It was then decided to run it through to Gainsborough Central which is much more convenient for the town centre than Lea Road. In addition to enabling the Lincoln trains to be speeded up, it provided extra capacity and frequency between Sheffield and Retford and also for the first time enabled good useable connections at Worksop into Robin Hood Line services to Mansfield and Nottingham.

 

[Greybeard33]

The money side of it is a point being stressed by the regional management team......to quote ....." There is a significant hole in revenue" .

Did your regional managers say there is a hole in revenue specifically on the west side, or across Northern as a whole?

 

[tbtc]

Someone not being on the 07:45 train every day due to a change in their circumstances, doesn't mean they'll never use the train. Hardly any companies have gone completely remote with no face-to-face days at all. While the companies who settle for monthly end up with less local workers. That means good connections between services are more important.

...but we can't necessarily keep running that 07:45 every day if only half the regulars are still using it, on the grounds that the other half might find it useful one day a week - how does the railway cope with vastly reduced income if we insist the they must retain the same level of services for the convenience of people who might use it a handful of times a month?

If Northern "ignore" the unions like they "ignore" their passengers I am not surprised there are tensions.

With the "bus company" model of privatisation, at least Arriva/ Serco etc had an incentive to come to an agreement - they'd signed up for a seven year franchise and they needed to bring in certain levels of revenue, so the Unions were in a strong position to squeeze a few quid because the TOC couldn't afford a long strike

If the Unions are punch drunk on those "successes" and think that they can pull the same trick with a Government operated Northern on a Government controlled GBR then there's going to be a rude awakening - some Tories probably relish a strike, and the chance to make Starmer uncomfortable about whether he supports the Unions disrupting commuters from doing their economic duty and keeping businesses ticking over

 

[northwichcat]

...but we can't necessarily keep running that 07:45 every day if only half the regulars are still using it, on the grounds that the other half might find it useful one day a week - how does the railway cope with vastly reduced income if we insist the they must retain the same level of services for the convenience of people who might use it a handful of times a month?

I think the proposed, but then dropped, idea for a half-hourly standard frequency on all the local routes in the Manchester area is what is needed. Whether there's extras at peak times could be decided based on loadings, passenger needs and track capacity.

We also need to remember operators of long distance services could lose a significant amount of revenue if local services are cutback. Poorer connections will make them less attractive and delay repay pay outs could be doubled. The Avanti delay I referred to earlier would have resulted in me getting £50 delay repay. If Northern had gone back to half-hourly at peak times on Mid-Cheshire, it instead would have resulted in £25 delay repay. On the last southbound connection between a Mid-Cheshire and an Avanti service at Stockport I noted there were around 10 other passengers making the same connection. If that's a typical number then Avanti could have paid out around £500* just from the passengers transferring from London to Mid-Cheshire services, rather than the £250* it would have been pre-COVID timetables. Add other routes like Buxton to the equation and the figure will be even higher.

* This presumes everyone was on a Knutsford to London Underground Zone 1 Off-Peak Return, which is unlikely to be the case. It's likely some passengers would have had advance fares and others would have had tickets from stations further down the line or more costly anytime tickets.

and the chance to make Starmer uncomfortable about whether he supports the Unions disrupting commuters from doing their economic duty and keeping businesses ticking over

Perhaps this is off-topic but I do recall the unions branding Liz Kendall as a red Tory, despite her voting record in parliament showing she always supported better rights for workers. It seems legally requiring employers to do more counts for nothing for some trade unions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2022 ==

Is the line between Chester and Altrincham even clear? It wasn't earlier...

In the post that was in response to, I referred to a service via Stockport. At Chester station they do refer to Mid-Cheshire services as Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport.

 

[Moonshot]

A proposed half hourly service as a minimum on every Manchester route needs infrastructure works. Sounds good on paper, but the reality is it's not achievable right now....... rightly dropped.

 

[northwichcat]

A proposed half hourly service as a minimum on every Manchester route needs infrastructure works. Sounds good on paper, but the reality is it's not achievable right now....... rightly dropped.

I don't know which proposal you're referring to, it can't be the one DfT publicly consulted on. That one would have seen services reduced to half-hourly on some lines and increased to half-hourly on others. I only recall one infrastructure pinch point being mentioned and that was 40 miles from Manchester on a single track section. The main reason for its rejection was down to not being enough time to train crews on route changes. For instance, Northern would have had to arrange staffing for twice as many Chester to Manchester via Warrington services and for half as many Manchester Oxford Road to Liverpool stoppers.

 

[Moonshot]

I don't know which proposal you're referring to, it can't be the one DfT publicly consulted on. That one would have seen services reduced to half-hourly on some lines and increased to half-hourly on others. I only recall one infrastructure pinch point being mentioned and that was 40 miles from Manchester on a single track section. The main reason for its rejection was down to not being enough time to train crews on route changes. For instance, Northern would have had to arrange staffing for twice as many Chester to Manchester via Warrington services and for half as many Manchester Oxford Road to Liverpool stoppers.

Too many conflicts. You would have to wonder why the Castlefield Corridor is being reduced to 10 trains per hour. It's been discussed so many times on this forum. Ordsall Lane needs grade separation. All single lines need doubling......the list is endless. The training of crews is totally irrelevant....

 

[northwichcat]

Too many conflicts. You would have to wonder why the Castlefield Corridor is being reduced to 10 trains per hour. It's been discussed so many times on this forum. Ordsall Lane needs grade separation. All single lines need doubling......the list is endless. The training of crews is totally irrelevant....

Both B and C included the same number of movements through the Castlefield corridor as shown in the thread on the subject: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-recovery-taskforce-timetable-consultation.213089/

It seems the approved B+ includes an additional service terminating at Oxford Road at peak times. So if C had been approved as originally proposed, it would have seen fewer movements through Castlefield then what we'll actually see from December.

The DfT response seems to focus on operator concerns that C overall would need an increase in rolling stock, training issues, passenger objections to stations losing direct services to Piccadilly and one infrastructure constraint at Mickle Trafford.

 

[Moonshot]

Both B and C included the same number of movements through the Castlefield corridor as shown in the thread on the subject: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-recovery-taskforce-timetable-consultation.213089/

It seems the approved B+ includes an additional service terminating at Oxford Road at peak times. So if C had been approved as originally proposed, it would have seen fewer movements through Castlefield then what we'll actually see from December.

The DfT response seems to focus on operator concerns that C overall would need an increase in rolling stock, training issues, passenger objections to stations losing direct services to Piccadilly and one infrastructure constraint at Mickle Trafford.

I think you misunderstand.......the point was made further up somewhere about every route into Manchester getting a minimum half hourly service. When you start delving into that and use places like Orrel , Bromley Cross, New Lane etc etc......then you will realise that infrastructure interventions are needed. I could think of at least 20 right off my head .....and to give you an example, Wigan Wallgate station would need to be made bi directional on both lines. The up platform at Salford Crescent would need access to the down Atherton line. Loads of things like that to sort out.....etc

 

[northernchris]

The money side of it is a point being stressed by the regional management team......to quote ....." There is a significant hole in revenue" .

It's a difficult one though as the current situation with services missing, traincrew shortages and the constant short forming creates a poor experience where passengers are unlikely to return. Do Northern really expect to be carrying the same number of passengers as they were pre-pandemic, with less services and less overall capacity? The December 2021 timetable was, in most cases, a sensible balance between demand and capacity, so I think that needs to be given the opportunity first (once enough crew are available) to attract passengers, then amend from there as required rather than base any long term decisions on current numbers/revenue

 

[Peterthegreat]

It's a difficult one though as the current situation with services missing, traincrew shortages and the constant short forming creates a poor experience where passengers are unlikely to return. Do Northern really expect to be carrying the same number of passengers as they were pre-pandemic, with less services and less overall capacity? The December 2021 timetable was, in most cases, a sensible balance between demand and capacity, so I think that needs to be given the opportunity first (once enough crew are available) to attract passengers, then amend from there as required rather than base any long term decisions on current numbers/revenue

December 2021 yes. January and February 2022 no. I don't see how anyone can expect anywhere near as many passengers when an hourly service becomes 2 trains per 3 hours, withdrawing the most popular (via volume) trains and then replacing most of them with buses taking three times as long and not taking the full route. In addition regular cancellations of trains that are supposed to run - including first and last trains. Passengers are staying away in droves with severe overcrowding on some of the trains which remain.

 

[Moonshot]

It's a difficult one though as the current situation with services missing, traincrew shortages and the constant short forming creates a poor experience where passengers are unlikely to return. Do Northern really expect to be carrying the same number of passengers as they were pre-pandemic, with less services and less overall capacity? The December 2021 timetable was, in most cases, a sensible balance between demand and capacity, so I think that needs to be given the opportunity first (once enough crew are available) to attract passengers, then amend from there as required rather than base any long term decisions on current numbers/revenue

I don't disagree, but ultimately the decision making is higher up the chain. It's become fairly obvious now that the pattern of travel has changed and is likely to stay like that. The industry will have to adapt to that. Fewer but longer trains would seem a rational thing to do at this moment in time provided that can be funded.

 

[robbeech]

Obviously not me assessing it. But the clued in opinion is bracing itself for this potential problem. Let's just hope there is a surge in passenger numbers in the meantime

The surge has happened, they’ve seen how unreliable it is so they have gone back to the car where they will stay until they can be convinced to try the train again, where they’ll be immediately let down, rinse and repeat.

I assume it's quite a drop in frequency as well.

50% as far as Gainsborough, but it’s what we saw for years. In the 6 months we got a half hourly service the stoppers were not always reliable but the extension to Leeds meant they didn’t have time to stop the fast services at all shacks between Worksop and Sheffield.

and also for the first time enabled good useable connections at Worksop into Robin Hood Line services to Mansfield and Nottingham.

I’ve given up on ever having useable connections (or indeed service) at either end of the Robin Hood line. The entire thing is just a hindrance for EMR and the quicker they can reduce passenger numbers on it to find an excuse to reduce services further (like they are in May) and not increase services on the southern half with a view to closing some stations entirely in a few years the better.

 

[northernchris]

December 2021 yes. January and February 2022 no. I don't see how anyone can expect anywhere near as many passengers when an hourly service becomes 2 trains per 3 hours, withdrawing the most popular (via volume) trains and then replacing most of them with buses taking three times as long and not taking the full route. In addition regular cancellations of trains that are supposed to run - including first and last trains. Passengers are staying away in droves with severe overcrowding on some of the trains which remain.

Indeed, I'm not convinced the management of Northern realise how bad things are at the moment, and their decisions are inevitably stifling passenger growth.

I don't disagree, but ultimately the decision making is higher up the chain. It's become fairly obvious now that the pattern of travel has changed and is likely to stay like that. The industry will have to adapt to that. Fewer but longer trains would seem a rational thing to do at this moment in time provided that can be funded.

I agree that travel habits have changed so the industry needs to adapt to support this, but Northern's response is to cut services and reduce capacity. As an example, pre-Covid the Wakefield line out of Leeds used to have a 1748 Sheffield which was a 150+153 and a 1757 Doncaster, 4 car 331. The OLR withdrew the 1757 and the 1748 is now a solo 150 which is full and standing daily. Given 4 150s have been temporarily removed from the Harrogate line in the cuts, and there's no platform constraints on the Sheffield route, the obvious solution would be to strengthen the 1748. Northern have the resources available and choose to do nothing, presumably to save themselves a few pounds in fuel. It's these decisions that need questioning, as it's not an acceptable level of service, and it's unlikely to encourage a return to rail

 

[Peterthegreat]

Indeed, I'm not convinced the management of Northern realise how bad things are at the moment, and their decisions are inevitably stifling passenger growth.


I agree that travel habits have changed so the industry needs to adapt to support this, but Northern's response is to cut services and reduce capacity. As an example, pre-Covid the Wakefield line out of Leeds used to have a 1748 Sheffield which was a 150+153 and a 1757 Doncaster, 4 car 331. The OLR withdrew the 1757 and the 1748 is now a solo 150 which is full and standing daily. Given 4 150s have been temporarily removed from the Harrogate line in the cuts, and there's no platform constraints on the Sheffield route, the obvious solution would be to strengthen the 1748. Northern have the resources available and choose to do nothing, presumably to save themselves a few pounds in fuel. It's these decisions that need questioning, as it's not an acceptable level of service, and it's unlikely to encourage a return to rail

Absolutely. The 17.15 from Sheffield was rammed last night. A two car 150 - over 70 passengers alighted at Swinton alone.

 

[Moonshot]

You can understand why ASLEF are balloting for strike action.

 

[northwichcat]

Northern have the resources available and choose to do nothing, presumably to save themselves a few pounds in fuel. It's these decisions that need questioning, as it's not an acceptable level of service, and it's unlikely to encourage a return to rail

Maybe they are providing over-provision on another route in the area?

Yesterday I caught the 14:39 Manchester to Chester via Altrincham, a 2 carriage train. I arrived on the platform in time for to see the train arrive off the 13:02 Chester to Manchester and there must have been more passengers alighting than seats. As the 14:39 I was on was pulling out a new 3 carriage train on an adjacent track was heading to Rose Hill Marple, it had less than 10 passengers on it, with the front 2 carriages completely empty. Yes I mean 10, on a Saturday, in Manchester! The concourse at Piccadilly was actually rammed, so lots of people travelling, just hardly anyone for stations to Rose Hill Marple.

 

[Killingworth]

Maybe they are providing over-provision on another route in the area?

Yesterday I caught the 14:39 Manchester to Chester via Altrincham, a 2 carriage train. I arrived on the platform in time for to see the train arrive off the 13:02 Chester to Manchester and there must have been more passengers alighting than seats. As the 14:39 I was on was pulling out a new 3 carriage train on an adjacent track was heading to Rose Hill Marple, it had less than 10 passengers on it with the front 2 carriages completely empty. Yes I mean 10, on a Saturday, in Manchester! The concourse at Piccadilly was actually rammed, so lots of people travelling, just hardly anyone for stations to Rose Hill Marple.

Years ago I heard crews wonder why Rose Hill trains were being sent out as 4 car on a Saturday when Hope Valley got a 2 car Pacer rammed too full to take any more. It's not new!

 

[yorksrob]

Years ago I heard crews wonder why Rose Hill trains were being sent out as 4 car on a Saturday when Hope Valley got a 2 car Pacer rammed too full to take any more. It's not new!

Did they ever find out why ?

 

[Killingworth]

Did they ever find out why ?

Wish I knew but at least weekend stoppers are mostly 3 car now, although that's not enough on nice days when TPE and EMR don't provide their hourly fast services. 4 would be better.

Which is part of the problem. Northern can't easily predict leisure demand at the best of times but when so many of their route miles should be covered by other operators with problems it's all but impossible to get provision right, even if they had crews and units


I'm thinking Hope Valley but Sheffield-Nottingham is shared with EMR. Sheffield-Doncaster should be shared with TPE and Crosscountry. Sheffield-Leeds is shared with Crosscountry. What with weather, rolling stock issues, Covid and now industrial relations is it any wonder that those with cars prefer to use them?