Calder Valley Diverts TPE Vs Northern Pathing

[waterboo]

On a fair few weekends, of course in the execution of the TRU Upgrade - Transpennine Express have been diverted along the Calder Valley.
However, on departing Manchester Victoria it appears that a Northern Stopper departs 3-4 minutes prior to an Express TPE which is first stop Dewsbury. Does anyone know the reason for the questionable Pathing / regulation of services?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

For example:
Slow Northern:

Realtime Trains | 2N91 0620 Wigan Wallgate to Blackburn | 20/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 2N91 0620 departure from Wigan Wallgate to Blackburn on 20/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Fast TPE:

Realtime Trains | 1K09 0706 Manchester Victoria to Hull | 20/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1K09 0706 departure from Manchester Victoria to Hull on 20/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[yorkie]

On a fair few weekends, of course in the execution of the TRU Upgrade - Transpennine Express have been diverted along the Calder Valley.
However, on departing Manchester Victoria it appears that a Northern Stopper departs 3-4 minutes prior to an Express TPE which is first stop Dewsbury. Does anyone know the reason for the questionable Pathing / regulation of services?

Because in Great Britain diverted services are generally seen as very low priority, and the paths of services running as booked are typically deemed sacrosanct.

It's all about financial penalties, contractual matters and bureaucracy; providing the best service for customers and minimising journey times for the majority is well down the list of priorities and in the "too difficult" pile.

 

[Tetchytyke]

that a Northern Stopper departs 3-4 minutes prior to an Express TPE which is first stop Dewsbury. Does anyone know the reason for the questionable Pathing / regulation of services?

Look at the pathing in context.

In your example there’s also a Northern semi-fast at 0656, so moving the TPE forward would just have put the TPE behind that semi-fast. There’s then a Northern stopper to Rochdale immediately after the TPE, then a Northern semi-fast just after that.

The Northern semi-fast to Blackburn only has an 8-minute turnaround at Blackburn, so rescheduling that by a few minutes has an impact on the rest of the day.

So long as the TPE is timetabled to fit in, then the extended journey time is just what happens when there’s a diversion.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Because in Great Britain diverted services are generally seen as very low priority, and the paths of services running as booked are typically deemed sacrosanct.

It's all about financial penalties, contractual matters and bureaucracy; providing the best service for customers and minimising journey times for the majority is well down the list of priorities and in the "too difficult" pile.

I'm sorry but that is blatantly untrue.

 

[yorkie]

I'm sorry but that is blatantly untrue.

Is it really?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sorry but that is blatantly untrue.

Quite.

There’s always a balancing act. Passengers at Castleton, Mills Hill, Moston, Walsden, Littleborough, and Smithy Bridge are just as important.

 

[yorkie]

Passengers at Castleton, Mills Hill, Moston, Walsden, Littleborough, and Smithy Bridge are just as important.

I agree that a high level of importance is associated with providing a consistent service at the local stations; that's the point and is the answer to @waterloo's question.

The Northern service to Leeds, which calls at many stations, is significantly faster than the TPE "fast" service, as the TPE service has an awful path as it has to fit around everything else; I don't see how anyone can question that this is what is happening.

Now whether or not that should be the case, that's a debate that will never end, as different people would have different opinions.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I agree that a high level of importance is associated with providing a consistent service at the local stations; that's the point and is the answer to @waterloo's question.

The Northern service to Leeds, which calls at many stations, is significantly faster than the TPE "fast" service, as the TPE service has an awful path as it has to fit around everything else; I don't see how anyone can question that this is what is happening.

Now whether or not that should be the case, that's a debate that will never end, as different people would have different opinions.

Why not tell us how you would have done it, with all the associated details?

 

[Watershed]

When services are diverted, @yorkie is correct that the default position is that they must fit around any existing services. Clearly, when you have a flow as significant as Manchester-Leeds/York etc. being diverted, that means that many people are being inconvenienced for the sake of a much smaller number who are on the existing services, whose paths are seen as inviolable.

One can only hope that bringing TPE under the umbrella of the OLR might bring some synergies and better cooperation with Northern. Whilst there has been a significant amount of planning involved to ensure that diverted TPE services work around Northern ones, it has very much been done under terms of reference that reflect a parochial attitude of not inconveniencing existing Calder Valley passengers, rather than looking at the bigger picture and minimising overall impact to passengers.

In your example there’s also a Northern semi-fast at 0656, so moving the TPE forward would just have put the TPE behind that semi-fast. There’s then a Northern stopper to Rochdale immediately after the TPE, then a Northern semi-fast just after that.

The Northern semi-fast to Blackburn only has an 8-minute turnaround at Blackburn, so rescheduling that by a few minutes has an impact on the rest of the day.

In a sensible, well-integrated railway it would be recognised that if an extra circuit was required in the Blackburn service to allow the diverted TPE service to get a better path - which in turn might save a circuit there - this would be a sensible compromise.

Sadly, that's not the world we live in and instead we have a scenario where taxpayer money is being poured down the drain by having different TOCs essentially engaging in a turf war. On top of it all you have FOCs receiving taxpayer subsidy to occupy the best paths, to (occasionally) transport "environmentally friendly" wood pellets across the Pennines to be burned close to an east coast port. You really couldn't make it up if you tried!

 

[3RDGEN]

On a fair few weekends, of course in the execution of the TRU Upgrade - Transpennine Express have been diverted along the Calder Valley.
However, on departing Manchester Victoria it appears that a Northern Stopper departs 3-4 minutes prior to an Express TPE which is first stop Dewsbury. Does anyone know the reason for the questionable Pathing / regulation of services?

I assume your referring to the xx:01 Saltburn service leaving behind the xx:57 Leeds service? There are three Northern services to Leeds an hour on Saturdays so TPE will always catch them somewhere whatever you do so there is no easy answer. A complete recast of Northern services isn't going to happen so TPE just has to fit in. The TPE makes Leeds in 70 minutes which is the same as the TPE xx:30 Newcastle does it in which runs in front of a Northern service.

It may also help spread passengers from the reduced TPE services to Northern given the journey times are not significantly quicker on TPE.

 

[yorkie]

Why not tell us how you would have done it, with all the associated details?

I am not sure anyone can give a definitive answer regarding what "should" be done, without knowing a lot more information regarding what's possible (in any case it would belong in the Speculative Discussion area).

I note you don't deny what I said. I see @Watershed has provided a good response.

 

[The Planner]

Network code Part D section 4.6.2 is your friend.

 

[Watershed]

Network code Part D section 4.6.2 is your friend.

Except operators don't usually take an STP bid to Decision Criteria, do they? And in this case it has effectively been mutually agreed how things will be bid.

The issue comes at an earlier stage of the process - when the broad principles are agreed - and more fundamentally with the structure and incentives the industry has.

 

[The Planner]

Except operators don't usually take an STP bid to Decision Criteria, do they? And in this case it has effectively been mutually agreed how things will be bid.

The issue comes at an earlier stage of the process - when the broad principles are agreed - and more fundamentally with the structure and incentives the industry has.

If someone disputes the offer the first thing that will get asked is "show me your decision criteria for allocating the capacity please NR". If everyone had the time and resource then everything is meant to follow it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Clearly, when you have a flow as significant as Manchester-Leeds/York etc. being diverted, that means that many people are being inconvenienced for the sake of a much smaller number who are on the existing services, whose paths are seen as inviolable

Those passengers are being inconvenienced anyway, and five minutes is neither here nor there. In the example given by the OP the train went into Huddersfield and reversed; that adds quite a bit more time than running direct to Dewsbury. Clearly the connections at Huddersfield are seen as more important than the through passengers’ time. Diverted passengers are already getting a time penalty, so long as it is reliable then 5-10 minutes is not worth quibbling over.

It’s easier to juggle things on somewhere like the Tyne Valley where there’s only one or two trains an hour.

But on the Calder Valley you have two stoppers an hour to Rochdale, three semi-fasts an hour to Leeds and one an hour to Burnley and Blackburn. You then have the Leeds-Blackpool train and the Huddersfield-Bradford to work around too. Whatever you do the TPEs are going to be right behind something. Indeed in the example the OP gave, the TPE was right behind a Northern semi-fast which was first stop Rochdale but was right in front of a Rochdale stopper.

Only other option would be to bustitute at some stations, like they do at Watton-at-Stone when the Hertford Loop’s needed for expresses, but I can’t say that’s ideal either.

 

[Eloise]

Fairly sure the diverts are in the WTT as part of a Period Block. And as The Planner says D4.6.2 is thrashed around. Most issues with blocks are disputed when the block is announced and the dispute surrounds the possession. Visit the ADRC website for many many examples.

In this instance Northern and TPE (and anyone else) will have worked together on the plan. Highly likely Northern have firm rights to the path all timetable, TPE are on divert for some of it so decisions are made using D4.6.2. The Northern may be fixed in terms of path in / out of Leeds. TPE will have a bolthole at Huddersfield to some extent to pick up a WTT path.

Whilst you cannot please all the people all the time there is usually method in the madness.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Northern service to Leeds, which calls at many stations, is significantly faster than the TPE "fast" service, as the TPE service has an awful path as it has to fit around everything else; I don't see how anyone can question that this is what is happening

In that example the train takes 15 minutes from Brighouse to Heaton Lodge, whilst the Northern train takes 3 minutes. That’s because the TPE goes into Huddersfield and reverses.

TPE used to avoid Huddersfield and bustitute to Brighouse, and if they did that here they’d be saving more than 10 minutes.

 

[zwk500]

If someone disputes the offer the first thing that will get asked is "show me your decision criteria for allocating the capacity please NR". If everyone had the time and resource then everything is meant to follow it.

Except nobody has ever had the time and resource, and particularly does not have such now.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

When services are diverted, @yorkie is correct that the default position is that they must fit around any existing services. Clearly, when you have a flow as significant as Manchester-Leeds/York etc. being diverted, that means that many people are being inconvenienced for the sake of a much smaller number who are on the existing services, whose paths are seen as inviolable.

One can only hope that bringing TPE under the umbrella of the OLR might bring some synergies and better cooperation with Northern. Whilst there has been a significant amount of planning involved to ensure that diverted TPE services work around Northern ones, it has very much been done under terms of reference that reflect a parochial attitude of not inconveniencing existing Calder Valley passengers, rather than looking at the bigger picture and minimising overall impact to passengers.


In a sensible, well-integrated railway it would be recognised that if an extra circuit was required in the Blackburn service to allow the diverted TPE service to get a better path - which in turn might save a circuit there - this would be a sensible compromise.

Sadly, that's not the world we live in and instead we have a scenario where taxpayer money is being poured down the drain by having different TOCs essentially engaging in a turf war. On top of it all you have FOCs receiving taxpayer subsidy to occupy the best paths, to (occasionally) transport "environmentally friendly" wood pellets across the Pennines to be burned close to an east coast port. You really couldn't make it up if you tried!

Again I don't really agree with this. And what focs have great paths? I can't think of any that do.

This viewpoint that freight is a lesser priority is eroding and that's a good thing for the industry and the country.

 

[The Planner]

Except nobody has ever had the time and resource, and particularly does not have such now.

Never said they did, or will, but the first thing anyone will ask if there is a hint of a dispute is was the process followed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2023 ==

Fairly sure the diverts are in the WTT as part of a Period Block. And as The Planner says D4.6.2 is thrashed around. Most issues with blocks are disputed when the block is announced and the dispute surrounds the possession. Visit the ADRC website for many many examples.

In this instance Northern and TPE (and anyone else) will have worked together on the plan. Highly likely Northern have firm rights to the path all timetable, TPE are on divert for some of it so decisions are made using D4.6.2. The Northern may be fixed in terms of path in / out of Leeds. TPE will have a bolthole at Huddersfield to some extent to pick up a WTT path.

Whilst you cannot please all the people all the time there is usually method in the madness.

Its rare the possession ends up at a dispute panel, the STP offer will though.

 

[yorkie]

In that example the train takes 15 minutes from Brighouse to Heaton Lodge, whilst the Northern train takes 3 minutes. That’s because the TPE goes into Huddersfield and reverses.

TPE used to avoid Huddersfield and bustitute to Brighouse, and if they did that here they’d be saving more than 10 minutes.

Have you actually looked at the timetable? The Northern train in question doesn't go via Brighouse; those that do are even slower!

TPE still do go via Huddersfield; yes they would save some time on this particular journey if this one also missed Huddersfield, but this isn't the point the original poster was making, which is that the paths are poor.

Northern 1154 departure from Manchester Victoria :

Realtime Trains | 1J10 1154 Manchester Victoria to Leeds | 21/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1J10 1154 departure from Manchester Victoria to Leeds on 21/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

TPE 1157 departure from MCV (avoiding Huddersfield):

Realtime Trains | 1P73 1157 Manchester Victoria to York | 21/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1P73 1157 departure from Manchester Victoria to York on 21/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The path of the latter is so poor that it's only 7 minutes quicker into Leeds despite avoidng a reversal, calling only once instead of 9 intermediate calls, and takes a faster route (via Brighouse).

Indeed the slowness of the path is demonstrated quite well in this case, where a 34 minute late departure from MCV was down to 18 minutes at Dewsbury and 16 at Leeds.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

TPE used to avoid Huddersfield and bustitute to Brighouse, and if they did that here they’d be saving more than 10 minutes.

They still do with the majority of diverted services. It's usually one train per hour at the most that still serves Huddersfield with a reversal, with all other services running direct via Cooper Bridge. On balance, it's a reasonable compromise as leaving Huddersfield with just the stopper would cause bigger issues in terms of overcrowding, though sending everything to Huddersfield isn't really necessary... and there probably isn't the capacity to do so anyway, as there's only one platform (P4) to use to reverse anything longer than a single 185.

 

[Spartacus]

You're generally a lot better leaving booked WTTs as they are and planning variations around them as messing with the WTT in one place almost inevitably means creating conflicts elsewhere, or compromising turnarounds. By the time you've done you could be adjusting half a dozen WTT services per hour, or more, just to accommodate one variation. That's half a dozen trainloads of people an hour having their schedules messed with for the sake of 1 trainload of people, not to mention any possible crewing issues.

 

[Welshman]

I seem to remember the last time Stalybridge was remodelled, Northern cancelled some services along the Calder Valley and TPE took their paths and made additional stops.
I rode a TPE 185 which stopped at Hebden Bridge, Todmorden and Rochdale - an interesting experience!
I thought they would have done the same thing this time, as that solved any pathing issues.

 

[Spartacus]

I thought they would have done the same thing this time, as that solved any pathing issues.

Given TPE's current lack of reliability I doubt Northern would even consider it now.