Cardiff to Manchester Fast Service

[Topological]

What would be the best way to attain a quicker journey time between Cardiff and Manchester?

Presently, the only direct train is via the Marches and takes a little over 3 hours. There are calls at Newport, Cwmbran, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport. Running this service means other stations are missed out from the hours where the fast train runs.

One option is simply to keep this route, maybe drop a couple more stops and put a stopping train alongside the fast. The advantage is a faster service for Hereford and Shrewsbury. The challenges are pathing a train on a route which has long block sections.

Option 2 is to use the GWML to Bristol Parkway then up through Birmingham. This uses the lines with the fastest other services. The disadvantage is the Severn Tunnel block section creates limits.

Option 3 is to run via Chepstow to get to the Bristol to Birmingham line near Gloucester. The advantage is avoiding Severn Tunnel and a slightly shorter distance. The disadvantage is interaction with the TfW stopper from Cheltenham to Cardiff.

Option 4 is accepting that the two cities do not need a fast service and just putting stops in all trains on the Marches that command an hourly service. Option 4 is the cheapest, but goes against any ambition for an "Intercity" service.

(I span this out of the discussion of TfW long distance fleet replacement)

 

[JonathanH]

To run fast trains requires infrastructure which allows overtaking. That means either layouts with a distance of four track railway, or putting slower trains in loops. The latter isn't really desirable, the former costs money to develop.

What is the societal need for faster services between Cardiff and Manchester, and by implication, slower services at the places on the way between them, or the loss of current connections?

We have had threads before on speeding up Cross Country by running trains that go fast from Birmingham to Bristol, then Exeter and Plymouth, but it will then come down to the ability to get a fast and a semi-fast out through the suburban services in Birmingham. Likewise here, could Crewe to Manchester accommodate a non-stop service from Cardiff and a slower service from Cardiff. Do people in Stockport and Wilmslow merit a fast service to Cardiff, or just people in Manchester?

It isn't an easy question to answer.

 

[daodao]

Option 4 is accepting that the two cities do not need a fast service and just putting stops in all trains on the Marches that command an hourly service.

That is the most appropriate option. Class 197 dmus (standard class only, with 3 coaches) would suffice for all services on this route for the next 25 years.

 

[jfollows]

I don't think the service needs to be faster, but it needs to be both

1. more reliable, look at the number of times the service to Manchester gets terminated at Wilmslow because it's running so late, this is an issue with the infrastructure and things like failing freight trains. It makes sense for the service to do this (turn back short, that is) but it's no fun for someone booked on the service starting from Manchester when it doesn't run from there, because you need to be very early in order to get a train to Wilmslow to connect into your planned service.
2. better stock - a work in progress I know, 3x197 is about OK, 2-car DMUs aren't

I avoid the services personally, I sometimes use them Crewe-Wilmslow but almost never Wilmslow-Manchester. Typical this week, arrived at Piccadilly just before 12:30 to find the service cancelled, but I simply went on the 12:36 stopper via Styal to Wilmslow instead.

I used to use it to Cardiff occasionally and I agree it seems to take for ever, but it is what it is.

But it's much more important to actually run to/from Manchester than whether or not it stops in Wilmslow; it seems very frequent that it doesn't make it beyond Wilmslow but that may be because I notice when it does. Passengers to Manchester are turfed out and have to make their own way although it may be on a Pendolino which probably has room, but in the other direction most people will be unable to get to Wilmslow in time for the service.

 

[Envoy]

The Marches line is the shortest route between the cities of south Wales and Crewe/Manchester. Cross Country are going to soon start running a Cardiff to Edinburgh service via Newcastle and no doubt this will take about an hour longer than using TfW via The Marches with a change at Crewe for Avanti. So, The Marches Line is not just about connecting the cities of south Wales with Manchester but also places north of Crewe such as Preston and Carlisle as well as Scotland.

I think a lot of the Wilmslow turn arounds have been because 75mph sprinters have been used and now hopefully, this is coming to an end with the 197’s and 67 hauled Mk 4’s. The timetable will be speeded up accordingly this winter so let's wait and see how things turn out.

Hopefully, it won't be too long until they introduce a Cardiff to Liverpool service via Wrexham.

 

[The Planner]

What would be the best way to attain a quicker journey time between Cardiff and Manchester?

Presently, the only direct train is via the Marches and takes a little over 3 hours. There are calls at Newport, Cwmbran, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport. Running this service means other stations are missed out from the hours where the fast train runs.

One option is simply to keep this route, maybe drop a couple more stops and put a stopping train alongside the fast. The advantage is a faster service for Hereford and Shrewsbury. The challenges are pathing a train on a route which has long block sections.

You will save about 6 minutes taking out Leominster and Ludlow, and it doesnt necessarily mean you can utilise it.

Option 2 is to use the GWML to Bristol Parkway then up through Birmingham. This uses the lines with the fastest other services. The disadvantage is the Severn Tunnel block section creates limits.

The tunnel isn't that much of a blocker, its poorly shown in the TPRs in my view as whilst it is a block section, its effectively a 5 minute headway where either side is a 4. That section is the least of your problems, Bromsgrove northwards is.

Option 3 is to run via Chepstow to get to the Bristol to Birmingham line near Gloucester. The advantage is avoiding Severn Tunnel and a slightly shorter distance. The disadvantage is interaction with the TfW stopper from Cheltenham to Cardiff.

That line is hardly chock a block with trains, if we cannot deal with a stopper once an hour we need to give up. As above, that section is the least of your problems, Bromsgrove northwards is.

That is the most appropriate option. Class 197 dmus (standard class only, with 3 coaches) would suffice for all services on this route for the next 25 years.

Based on what?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2024 ==

The Marches line is the shortest route between the cities of south Wales and Crewe/Manchester. Cross Country are going to soon start running a Cardiff to Edinburgh service via Newcastle

"A" service being the operative bit. Its one.

 

[Topological]

You will save about 6 minutes taking out Leominster and Ludlow, and it doesnt necessarily mean you can utilise it.

The tunnel isn't that much of a blocker, its poorly shown in the TPRs in my view as whilst it is a block section, its effectively a 5 minute headway where either side is a 4. That section is the least of your problems, Bromsgrove northwards is.

That line is hardly chock a block with trains, if we cannot deal with a stopper once an hour we need to give up. As above, that section is the least of your problems, Bromsgrove northwards is.

Based on what?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2024 ==


"A" service being the operative bit. Its one.

Thank you for the assessments. I must confess I had thought the route via Chepstow was a little more difficult than the via Bristol. I would still choose via Bristol because a Bristol Parkway stop has some use.

I am not really sure what can be done about Bromsgrove to Birmingham though, so there are two options for a Cardiff to Manchester route that are reliant on that problem.

I am very much against using the Marches and skipping stops. It is good to know that there is not much time saving available from skip-stopping. As a Marches user, I think that a train designed for quicker dwells and hourly services is the answer there.

So IF there is to be an "Intercity" type service between Cardiff and Manchester then Birmingham is the problem to solve.

One possibility is to remove the CrossCountry service (cut it back to just Nottingham to Birmingham) and let this new train pick up the Gloucester and Worcestershire Parkway stops. That might help CrossCountry with their 170 availability too.

 

[irish_rail]

There just doesn't seem to be a will to speed up intercity journeys in this country (London to Birmingham via HS2 excepted). Its a shame, it feels as if the industry has given up when it comes to reducing journey times on longer distance trains.

 

[Harpo]

Anyone asking ‘why faster’ is in denial about the growth it has repeatedly delivered all over the UK rail network. On the Marches that has contributed to the route growing from 5 trains per day each way to todays traffic level.

In a letter in October’s Modern Railways, Chris Gibbs welcomes the recent mk4 PSR improvements and says:

‘Regional Railways….delivered 90mph running for Class 158s in 1992 and made full use of it….13.33 Manchester to Cardiff…in 2h 58min which has yet to be matched…..’

He concludes with…

The Marches line continues to have great potential and I look forward to its future with interest.

Accelerating the Marches services could have no better endorsement.

 

[Topological]

The Marches line is the shortest route between the cities of south Wales and Crewe/Manchester. Cross Country are going to soon start running a Cardiff to Edinburgh service via Newcastle and no doubt this will take about an hour longer than using TfW via The Marches with a change at Crewe for Avanti. So, The Marches Line is not just about connecting the cities of south Wales with Manchester but also places north of Crewe such as Preston and Carlisle as well as Scotland.

I think a lot of the Wilmslow turn arounds have been because 75mph sprinters have been used and now hopefully, this is coming to an end with the 197’s and 67 hauled Mk 4’s. The timetable will be speeded up accordingly this winter so let's wait and see how things turn out.

Hopefully, it won't be too long until they introduce a Cardiff to Liverpool service via Wrexham.

Presumably any routing of the limited stop Cardiff to Manchester would provide for onward connections in the North West as well (the timing might even be better since there is a 40 minute wait at Crewe for the Avanti to Scotland)

The question of the Marches is really whether it should be supporting a separate fast service, or whether it is justified to continually remove stops from the existing trains (As is done some hours at Craven Arms and Church Stretton, or in the mixed pattern for stations between Shrewsbury and Crewe)

I do hope the Wilmslow terminators will reduce in number, but it is certainly not unheard of for the 197s to terminate at Wilmslow. Last time that happened to me the Pendolino was cancelled as well so there was a long wait and a busy Northern for the final leg of the journey. Going the other way the xx:06 Manchester to Crewe is needed to meet what should be the xx:30 from Manchester. However, it is still the case you need to be on the platform at Piccadilly when the TfW arrives. The 5-car 197s cannot come soon enough.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2024 ==

Anyone asking ‘why faster’ is in denial about the growth it has repeatedly delivered all over the UK rail network. On the Marches that has contributed to the route growing from 5 trains per day each way to todays traffic level.

In a letter in October’s Modern Railways, Chris Gibbs welcomes the recent mk4 PSR improvements and says:

‘Regional Railways….delivered 90mph running for Class 158s in 1992 and made full use of it….13.33 Manchester to Cardiff…in 2h 58min which has yet to be matched…..’

He concludes with…

The Marches line continues to have great potential and I look forward to its future with interest.

Accelerating the Marches services could have no better endorsement.

Slightly off-topic, but reduced dwells increase speed too. Hence my appreciation of the 197s. I would argue that going for stock like the Mk4s has been regressive in that regard because they definitely spend longer at the stations.

The question about skipping stops to increase end to end time is not about speed, or being regressive, it is about the service offering for the people at those stops.

 

[Snow1964]

Option 4 is accepting that the two cities do not need a fast service and just putting stops in all trains on the Marches that command an hourly service. Option 4 is the cheapest, but goes against any ambition for an "Intercity" service.

I think Cardiff is not seen as a country capital, but more a smallish provincial city. Apart from its trains connecting London (where London long distance standards are applied) it basically has to make do with semi-fast trains using DMUs that are more suburban than regional.

Applies to all its other longer routes too :
Trains to Portsmouth (serving 7 cities), using 30+ DMUs
Trains to UKs second biggest city & East Midlands, using 20+ year old XC 170s
Trains to big NW cities, DMUs (but new 197s)
Trains to SW Cities, IETs (temporarily), but likely to become 25 year old 175 DMUs

 

[The Planner]

Anyone asking ‘why faster’ is in denial about the growth it has repeatedly delivered all over the UK rail network. On the Marches that has contributed to the route growing from 5 trains per day each way to todays traffic level.

In a letter in October’s Modern Railways, Chris Gibbs welcomes the recent mk4 PSR improvements and says:

‘Regional Railways….delivered 90mph running for Class 158s in 1992 and made full use of it….13.33 Manchester to Cardiff…in 2h 58min which has yet to be matched…..’

He concludes with…

The Marches line continues to have great potential and I look forward to its future with interest.

Accelerating the Marches services could have no better endorsement.

As much this will probably attract the ire of staff, professional driving standards and dwell times make these previous journey times difficult to achieve.

 

[Nottingham59]

What would be the best way to attain a quicker journey time between Cardiff and Manchester?

How fast will it be changing at Old Oak Common?

 

[Snow1964]

How fast will it be changing at Old Oak Common?

Difficult to know until see timetable, the connection time could be good part of an hour, if timings don't match up.

 

[daodao]

Based on what?

A minimalist approach, appropriate for the current and future austerity that is all the UK can expect over the next couple of decades.

 

[Nottingham59]

Difficult to know until see timetable, the connection time could be good part of an hour, if timings don't match up.

Sure. But let's work out the best case, anyway. Currently Cardiff - Paddington is 1h50m, with five stops. So 1h45m to OOC. Minimum 10 mins interchange. Euston to Piccadilly is claimed to be 1h41m with phase 1, and 1h11m with phase 2, so 1h35 and 1h05m from OOC.

So phase 1 at 3h30m won't help, but phase 2 would give 3hours exactly (plus up to 15 minutes waiting time assuming 4tph to Manchester when/if phase 2 ever opens).

The opportunity to speed up Cardiff-Manchester might come from running faster Cardiff-London services using Chris Green's Gibb's ideas of re-engineering Pendolino's to run up to 155mph (250kph) under ETCS. Most of the line is certainly straight enough to accommodate speeds well over 125mph.

I don't know how much scope phase 2 will give to speed up Cardiff-Manchester by walking from New St to Curzon St.

 

[Harpo]

Chris Green's ideas of re-engineering Pendolino's to run up to 155mph (250kph)

Chris Gibbs. Who is just as interested in accelerating the Marches!

 

[The Planner]

A minimalist approach, appropriate for the current and future austerity that is all the UK can expect over the next couple of decades.

So absolutely no evidence at all then.

 

[The exile]

I think Cardiff is not seen as a country capital, but more a smallish provincial city. Apart from its trains connecting London (where London long distance standards are applied) it basically has to make do with semi-fast trains using DMUs that are more suburban than regional

Appropriacy of service should be based on actual or potential demand, not political status. Obviously that political/administrative status will affect demand, but shouldn’t in itself be the driver of service provision.

 

[zwk500]

Thank you for the assessments. I must confess I had thought the route via Chepstow was a little more difficult than the via Bristol. I would still choose via Bristol because a Bristol Parkway stop has some use.

I am not really sure what can be done about Bromsgrove to Birmingham though, so there are two options for a Cardiff to Manchester route that are reliant on that problem.

I am very much against using the Marches and skipping stops. It is good to know that there is not much time saving available from skip-stopping. As a Marches user, I think that a train designed for quicker dwells and hourly services is the answer there.

So IF there is to be an "Intercity" type service between Cardiff and Manchester then Birmingham is the problem to solve.

One possibility is to remove the CrossCountry service (cut it back to just Nottingham to Birmingham) and let this new train pick up the Gloucester and Worcestershire Parkway stops. That might help CrossCountry with their 170 availability too.

Going via Birmingham loses you too much time whichever way you go.

A faster Cardiff-Manchester is possible however it requires a quite serious rejig of Newport-Cardiff section as the existing paths are timed in behind a flight of fast trains and Maindee Jns are nasty. You'd also require dropping stops out of the existing service, which means running an extra stopper to cover them off (as slowing down the Cardiff-Birmingham/Holyheads isn't an option), and retiming all the freight (which is not popular with FOCs or their end customers). You'd also need to lengthen a few of the loops to let freight get out of the way.

The tunnel isn't that much of a blocker, its poorly shown in the TPRs in my view as whilst it is a block section, its effectively a 5 minute headway where either side is a 4.

It's a bit longer than that isn't it? Passenger takes 4.5 mins (so 6.5 minute headway with the +2 reoccupation) but freight can take a lot longer. That +2 should probably be +1 or even 0, although the bigger issue in the rules for Cardiff-Manchester is that the headways on the Marches don't show some IB sections (Abergavenny northbound is the worst offender) and Onibury SB (between Bromfield and Craven Arms) isn't mentioned at all.

 

[Envoy]

It looks to me like it would be relatively easy to insert a passing loop northbound at Craven Arms on land where tracks have been ripped up previously. This could be used for moving freights out of the way or for slower stopping passenger trains - which could use the abandoned side of the northbound platform. See Google Maps.

Southbound - the same applies at Abergavenny. See Google Map.

Nobody is going to travel from south Wales all the way to the edge of London in order to catch a train to Manchester on HS2. Little or no time would be saved compared to the direct Marches route and the fare for the GWR section alone would be more expensive than that from Cardiff to Manchester direct. All the more reason to have InterCity Express services on the south Wales to Manchester route interlaced with slower stopping trains.

I really hope that the faster Mk4 trains (limited stop) can be well matched at Crewe with the Avanti services to Edinburgh/ Glasgow.

 

[zwk500]

It looks to me like it would be relatively easy to insert a passing loop northbound at Craven Arms on land where tracks have been ripped up previously. This could be used for moving freights out of the way or for slower stopping passenger trains - which could use the abandoned side of the northbound platform. See Google Maps.

The distance from the bottom of the platform ramp to the level crossing is 445m. Standage will be less than that (c.60m clearance points on turnout, minimum 40m Overlap on signal clear of clearance point, 20m signal standback for sighting), and aggregates is assumed to be running at up to 450m long at full load (although probably not quite that long on Marches, but certainly close to if not longer than the 360m available on the assumptions I've just mentioned).

Southbound - the same applies at Abergavenny. See Google Map.

Same problem, distance from foot crossing to existing signal is 388m. Once you take off the turnouts and standback, can't get a freight of any meaningful length in.

And both of those are before you get to the point that there's no such thing as an 'easy' signalling change. New junction means new signal - these are both semaphore areas with colour light distants, so do you mix and match or provide new brackets, can the frames cope, is it worth just resignalling anyway as part of a larger renewal, signal sighting, headways, approach control/release, etc, etc.

 

[cle]

I posited this only recently elsewhere but could it be worth having a Crewe-Cardiff-West service, on top? Easy to platform at Crewe, offers connections to everywhere (inc Manc) at Crewe, and cover off the local/regional flows and addl frequency nearer Cardiff. And then a fast service Manc-Cardiff which after Crewe is only Shrewsbury and Hereford before Newport.

Of course if the Liverpool came online (and was additional, vs the Chester/Holyheads) - this could do some of the lifting, but then Shrewsbury-Crewe might still want a shuttle to enable fasts.

 

[irish_rail]

It looks to me like it would be relatively easy to insert a passing loop northbound at Craven Arms on land where tracks have been ripped up previously. This could be used for moving freights out of the way or for slower stopping passenger trains - which could use the abandoned side of the northbound platform. See Google Maps.

Southbound - the same applies at Abergavenny. See Google Map.

Nobody is going to travel from south Wales all the way to the edge of London in order to catch a train to Manchester on HS2. Little or no time would be saved compared to the direct Marches route and the fare for the GWR section alone would be more expensive than that from Cardiff to Manchester direct. All the more reason to have InterCity Express services on the south Wales to Manchester route interlaced with slower stopping trains.

I really hope that the faster Mk4 trains (limited stop) can be well matched at Crewe with the Avanti services to Edinburgh/ Glasgow.

Agree with this. There wouldn't be the capacity on GWR services to start taking all the additional passengers towards London. But as you say, people simply won't travel all the way to London, just to head north. Its another reason why long distance trains shouldn't have to be slowed down stopping at Old Oak Common.

 

[Bevan Price]

I know why they do it - to reduce the number of trains required, and thus to save money, but I would ask a question.
Should turnround times of around 15 minutes be considered adequate for long distance services such as Cardiff to Manchester ?
That is often the "excuse" for terminating trains short of their final destination.

 

[I'm here now]

You could just electrify the marshes and put some new EMUs on the line, that’ll speed the service up!

 

[daodao]

You could just electrify the marshes and put some new EMUs on the line, that’ll speed the service up!

An appropriate aspiration for 2049, particularly if traffic grows, but not for the next 25 years. The class 197s will hopefully last until then, the Class 67+Mk4 sets won't.

 

[zwk500]

You could just electrify the marshes and put some new EMUs on the line, that’ll speed the service up!

"just" is doing some seriously heavy lifiting there. Although as @daodao says, it should be the long-term goal but it's going to need to wait. Newport-Abergavenny for local services would be a good stage 1 though, but anything else will likely need to wait until at least Wolves-Shrewsbury is done.

 

[The Planner]

You could just electrify the marshes and put some new EMUs on the line, that’ll speed the service up!

Would it to a great extent though? You would gain at station stops marginally, but unless there are significant step changes in speed along the route,its not going to get a lot.

 

[Topological]

How much of an issue is Shrewsbury to times on the Marches?

Talk of infrastructure investment made me think of the number of times my train has sat outside Shrewsbury waiting for a platform. In theory the station is not that busy so is it something a few more points to enable parallel moves could fix?

Either way, I still think that you need to serve places like Church Stretton, Nantwich and Whitchurch with the regular long-distance trains. If electrification enables that then great, but the main enabler will always be not withdrawing the stops from any of the hourly trains that exist currently (presently some do skip stops).