Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[daodao]

You'd still need to provide a fast commuter service from Wigan though. It would help, maybe, by not running through to the airport. But still have to find west-facing capacity at Manchester somehow.

The current rush hour commuter service on the Southport line is a disgrace compared to what was offered pre-WW1. The April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows evening trains leaving Victoria on weekdays (with journey time in brackets) as follows:

1610 (52 mins)
1700 (48 mins)
1740 (49 mins)
1815 (55 mins)
1905 (52 mins)
2050 (53 mins)​

The trains at 1700 and 1740 didn't stop at Wigan, but the others did, usually taking 24 mins to Wallgate. Similar services were available in 1962, albeit a couple of minutes slower.

Surely it is possible in 2020 to provide an hourly fast service from Victoria to Southport, calling at Wallgate and Meols Cop only, with an additional train between 1700 and 1800, taking no more than 55 minutes.

 

[Gareth]

Realistic. I've got no issues with the additional Liverpools being put on, and maybe those will make it to hourly eventually. But removing the service from Manchester would be absolutely nuts - "M62 envy" would be the only possible grounds for it. Moving it to Victoria may make sense, but not lopping it. The case for the Barrow/Windermere is far, far lower.

It may well not be realistic but that doesn't necessarily make it a terrible idea in itself.

I think it's perfectly rational to envy Manchester's rail services to Scotland and other exotic places.

That being said: my suggestion wasn't actually about "M62 envy" at all but merely a thought exercise in how to remove all long distance services off Castlefield, if we were to seriously consider it.

I don't pretend it's good for Manchester but the reality on the ground is that Castlefield is the rail equivalent to Switch Island; a complete and utter mess, where the infrastructure tries to cater for local and long distance traffic and does so poorly. The analogy is equally apt in that there's no easy fix solution.

Diverted Scotland services to Liverpool would serve the same markets between Preston and Scotland. It's not just about the end destination. Yes, Manchester and Bolton would lose the direct services (welcome to Liverpool's world) but Liverpool, St Helens and Wigan would generate new direct journey opportunities. I'm pretty sure it was the North West RUS that said Liverpool needed 2tph to Preston. That must be a decade or so old now and the frequency increase still hasn't materialised.

Basically it's a turd sandwich and we should all have to take bite. Why should Liverpool lose its Sheffield service but anything into Manchester protected? It's not even like Liverpool ends up better off really anyway. Yes, Scotland is perhaps a more exotic destination, on the face of it, than Sheffield but demand is probably higher to the latter.

If we're going to go down the route of removing long distance traffic from Castlefield, let's do it properly or not at all. Yes, it wouldn't be ideal but at least what we'd end up with might have a chance of actually working properly. Additionally, the absence of direct intercity connections like Manchester/Scotland and Liverpool/Sheffield could help make the case for the significant infrastructural investment that is sorely needed; namely, an East/West tunnel into Piccadilly for long distance services. But that's not realistic either, is it.

 

[Mathew S]

The current rush hour commuter service on the Southport line is a disgrace compared to what was offered pre-WW1. The April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows evening trains leaving Victoria on weekdays (with journey time in brackets) as follows:

1610 (52 mins)
1700 (48 mins)
1740 (49 mins)
1815 (55 mins)
1905 (52 mins)
2050 (53 mins)​

The trains at 1700 and 1740 didn't stop at Wigan, but the others did, usually taking 24 mins to Wallgate. Similar services were available in 1962, albeit a couple of minutes slower.

Surely it is possible in 2020 to provide an hourly fast service from Victoria to Southport, calling at Wallgate and Meols Cop only, with an additional train between 1700 and 1800, taking no more than 55 minutes.

I can't see how, without taking out other services to make room for it. And running non-stopping trains doesn't help with the overall issue of capacity, because you still need to find a path for another service to serve the intermediate stations.

I suppose one option would be to divert the Barrow/Windermere trains via Bolton, and run the Southport - Stalybridge servive via Chat Moss to Victoria, but I don't think it would save a significant amount of time, to be honest.

The real reason services take longer now than they did decades ago is that they're safer. Speed limits are more sensible, signalling more cautious, and things like running brake tests add time. If it costs an extra 15-20 minutes to make sure everyone gets home safely then so be it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it is possible in 2020 to provide an hourly fast service from Victoria to Southport, calling at Wallgate and Meols Cop only, with an additional train between 1700 and 1800, taking no more than 55 minutes.

Isn't the issue more the Atherton and Bolton lines than where you might stop west of Wigan?

 

[Meerkat]

Cutting the Barrow service would be politically difficult, the area is isolated enough already.

 

[B&I]

I have never seriously proposed closing Merseyrail. Serpell did, but I haven't.

I have proposed reduction in staffing, e.g. closing the ticket offices which really don't do anything a TVM wouldn't do, and if that TVM had ToD that would be an improvement overall, but that's different.



I think we differ on what constitutes improvements, possibly due to our differing belief on how a timetable should be structured. I value punctuality, reliability, capacity and good connections over long arbitrary through services, so I would, for instance, consider lopping the Norwich to Manchester and replacing it with a self-contained 6-car Class 195 Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester service (to Ringway if you must) to be a significant improvement, because it would be punctual, reliable and everyone would get a seat for the key journey (Liverpool-Manchester south side) and connections would be available for longer distance travellers. I suspect you would consider this a reduction in service.

I have similar views on Kirkby - I would rather Merseyrail to Wigan at least twice an hour then a change for Manchester onto a higher capacity ex-Southport service (2tph clockface) than a slow hourly nowt-after-7pm through service with a 2-car DMU all stops via Atherton (which isn't even scenic unlike via Bolton, you just get to enjoy views of run-down towns and scrapyards). But many, you included I suspect, would see this as a bad thing.

Similarly with LNR, the service needs splitting back up at Brum or even Northampton as it was reliable then. I suspect those enjoying a cheapo through trip from Liverpool to Euston (which is long and slow but better than a coach, which is what it's competing with really) disagree, as once they're on as long as it makes it all the way they probably aren't bothered.

I take a more nuanced approach, rather than thinking that every aspect of the railways can be improved by chopping up services.

Something like Kirkby is daft because the service goes in the wrong direction for the bulk of people using the line (or who could be using it) - it should be Merseyrailed to Skem and a Manchester-bound service from there.

Similarly, LNWR running Euston-Lime St via Brum is beyond daft, a product of lack of capacity round Brum and the downgrading of the Liverpool-Brum service to an all-stops joke (despite it being necessary to use this service ro connect to many services towards the south coast and south west, because people who think like you pruned all the services which used to run directly from those places to Liverpool).

As someone who uses the EMR service with reasonable regularity, I have some idea of what would happen in practice with your blithe suggestion of chopping it up. It would mean a journey which was at least half an hour longer, because when I change at Piccadilly (as I frequently have to, due to lack of direct services to Liverpool), this is usually how long the transfer takes. The service is already pathetic given the distance between the cities linked - it was pointed out upthread that it averages 40 mph between Liverpool and Sheffield.

All this assumes that the Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly service would be fast or reliable. At present, it is 10.minites slower than the EMR service and appallingly unreliable (cancelled, I'd say, on 50% of the occasions I try to use it). Also, as this train would continue to have to run to Piccadilly, you plan would not free up any capacity, unless you're proposing a not reduction in services between Liverpool and Manchester after the EMR one is cut. Boy, that'll get passengers rushing to use rail !

Your one size fits all solution to every single railway problem promises nothing but making rail even less competitive with the car than it already is between many even major cities at this end of the country. And, as the unreliability of the system has many causes in addition to lack of capacity at certain points (slow and unreliable stock, badly maintained track and signalling, staffing problems) there is no guarantee at all that it would actually bring about any improvements to anything.

 

[B&I]

The current rush hour commuter service on the Southport line is a disgrace compared to what was offered pre-WW1. The April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows evening trains leaving Victoria on weekdays (with journey time in brackets) as follows:

1610 (52 mins)
1700 (48 mins)
1740 (49 mins)
1815 (55 mins)
1905 (52 mins)
2050 (53 mins)​

The trains at 1700 and 1740 didn't stop at Wigan, but the others did, usually taking 24 mins to Wallgate. Similar services were available in 1962, albeit a couple of minutes slower.

Surely it is possible in 2020 to provide an hourly fast service from Victoria to Southport, calling at Wallgate and Meols Cop only, with an additional train between 1700 and 1800, taking no more than 55 minutes.

Did those faster services run via Atherton ? If so, have capacity reductions like 2 tracking on the line through Atherton, and closure of Manchester Exchange, helped worsen the services ?

 

[B&I]

The suggestion is not that the Scottish service in Liverpool should not be improved. It's that removing it from Manchester would be insanely stupid. Services need to be lopped out, but not that one. The very worst I'd do to it would be to cut it to two-hourly and run the Glasgow and Edinburgh together as portions of a 10-car train, but that would require platform extensions at Ringway[1].

(Actually, there might be something in that - through Barrow every 2 hours, through Scotland every 2 hours, Windermere as a shuttle, terminate the Barrow at Lancaster in the other hour - isn't that close to how it was pre-1998? I'm pretty sure it was, and the pre-1998 timetable, while sparser than now, was the last time the North's network was truly reliable)

[1] Sorry, couldn't resist

Apparently calling it Ringway is puerile, so watch yourself.

Anyway, I want to see Manchester with more rail services and capacity, not less, as the most important thing is getting people out of their cars.

What annoys me is the automatic tendency some people on here have of writing off any suggestion of any improvement in Liverpool's rail services as the result of Scouse chippiness, rather than the same desire for better services that rail users have all over the country. Now that is puerile

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cutting the Barrow service would be politically difficult, the area is isolated enough already.

Most people are either going to Lancaster or connecting there for London etc. Through passengers to Manchester are much lower (though they exist, I've done it myself!)

I would (possibly predictably) suggest there would be more benefit in tidying up the service and using well-specified dedicated units on it, perhaps 4-car formations for Lancaster (or Preston) as far as Barrow and 2-car beyond, 156s would be reasonable though 2 x 2-car 195s would be nicer if they can be cleared to go round the coast. All trains could operate through, simplifying the timetable, and again on the same calling patterns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apparently calling it Ringway is puerile, so watch yourself.

Anyway, I want to see Manchester with more rail services and capacity, not less, as the most important thing is getting people out of their cars.

Long-term yes, but at present we have a punctuality and reliability problem which needs fixing. Even if the decision is made tomorrow to build NPR, 15/16 and a load of other stuff that's going to be 5-10 years before any of the improvements kick in. We can't carry on as we are on that horizon.

What annoys me is the automatic tendency some people on here have of writing off any suggestion of any improvement in Liverpool's rail services as the result of Scouse chippiness, rather than the same desire for better services that rail users have all over the country. Now that is puerile

As I've said I personally see "punctual and reliable" to be more important than "through to somewhere further away" - note my calls to split up LNR routes even though it will result in poorer through services from Bletchley. But I thought the example of removing the through service from Manchester to send it to Liverpool was beyond ridiculous - there is a huge demand for Manchester to/from Scotland which TPE have grown over the years, and most of it isn't getting on at Preston (and in any case Avanti provide 2tph for that purpose).

 

[Gareth]

I thought the example of removing the through service from Manchester to send it to Liverpool was beyond ridiculous - there is a huge demand for Manchester to/from Scotland which TPE have grown over the years, and most of it isn't getting on at Preston (and in any case Avanti provide 2tph for that purpose).

Well, Neil, I hope we can rely on you to make a similar case for the retention of Liverpool-Sheffield when its axation will be suggested; on here and quite possibly by officialdom in the near future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, Neil, I hope we can rely on you to make a similar case for the retention of Liverpool-Sheffield when its axation will be suggested; on here and quite possibly by officialdom in the near future.

What is the demand level for Liverpool to Sheffield as a through journey? My observation has generally been (and I used to use those services extensively) that between Oxford Road and Piccadilly there would be an almost complete turnover of passengers. Same with the TPEs.

 

[Gareth]

I thought you might know.

They're two reasonably close large cities though. I'm not sure it's a dead cert that more journeys are made between Manchester and Glasgow/Edinburgh; which are much further apart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought you might know.

They're two reasonably close large cities though. I'm not sure it's a dead cert that more journeys are made between Manchester and Glasgow/Edinburgh; which are much further apart.

That's an interesting point. The difference, though, is that Edinburgh is a massive tourist destination and Sheffield isn't (the Edinburghs are far busier than the Glasgows). Liverpool is to a fair extent, but is it popular from Sheffield? (Manchester-Sheffield has huge demand, but a lot of that is commuters, and they are close enough for commuting - from Liverpool, Manchester is the comparable destination, or vice versa).

 

[Meerkat]

Most people are either going to Lancaster or connecting there for London etc. Through passengers to Manchester are much lower (though they exist, I've done it myself!)

I don’t doubt that, but it is the psychology and politics of ‘cutting off’ Furness (and two changes to the coast??) and the marketing for attracting businesses and tourists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t doubt that, but it is the psychology and politics of ‘cutting off’ Furness (and two changes to the coast??)

My suggestion would still only be one change, it'd just be at Lancaster. Nothing would terminate at Barrow any more - the whole service would be an hourly clockface one from Lancaster all the way to Carlisle and back (with short workings at the start and end of the day).

That would make the more southern part of the coast even better connected - one change to London rather than two, say.

 

[Meerkat]

I think Barrow politicians would kick off big time!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Barrow politicians would kick off big time!

Everyone will kick off if their service gets cut. A decision is going to have to be made, in the short term, to cut something and weather that storm.

 

[Greybeard33]

I value punctuality, reliability, capacity and good connections over long arbitrary through services, so I would, for instance, consider lopping the Norwich to Manchester and replacing it with a self-contained 6-car Class 195 Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester service (to Ringway if you must) to be a significant improvement, because it would be punctual, reliable and everyone would get a seat for the key journey (Liverpool-Manchester south side) and connections would be available for longer distance travellers.

The main reasons that the westbound Norwich to Liverpool service is unpunctual and unreliable (between Manchester and Liverpool) are, firstly, delays in the Castlefield corridor; secondly, delays at Dore; and thirdly, delays in the Hope Valley. Eastbound, the main issues are late arrival of the westbound service at Lime Street and delays in the Castlefield corridor.

An eastbound delayed in the corridor can then delay the eastbound Hope Valley stopper at New Mills South Jn, causing that stopper to depart late from Sheffield on its return leg and delay a subsequent EMR westbound in the Hope Valley. The late eastbound can also delay the previous westbound on the single line at Dore. So the root cause of all the poor performance is the congestion in the Castlefield corridor. The Norwich to Liverpool is more sinned against than sinning!

If this service were replaced by a second Airport to Liverpool service, there would still be the the same number of services along the corridor, and congestion and delays would still occur. Splitting the Norwich to Liverpool would be treating the symptoms not the root cause, and so this proposal is really irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

What is needed in the short term is to remove at least two services from the corridor completely. Those cannot be any of the four CLC line services, because that would cause unacceptable peak overcrowding on the remaining three CLC services.

 

[Meerkat]

Everyone will kick off if their service gets cut. A decision is going to have to be made, in the short term, to cut something and weather that storm.

But isn’t the Barrow one the only one where losing their whole long distance service is proposed?

 

[Greybeard33]

But isn’t the Barrow one the only one where losing their whole long distance service is proposed?

Well, if the rumoured timetable change reported by @scrapy turns out to be correct (see post #206) Kirkby could lose its direct service to Manchester again (after just getting it back last December), in order to free up a path for the Southport - Alderley Edge to be diverted to Victoria via Atherton. Kirkby line passengers would have to change at Wigan Wallgate or Bolton. A little ironic, since the Kirkby service does not go through the Castlefield corridor!

 

[B&I]

What is the demand level for Liverpool to Sheffield as a through journey? My observation has generally been (and I used to use those services extensively) that between Oxford Road and Piccadilly there would be an almost complete turnover of passengers. Same with the TPEs.

Have you ascertained the amount of end-to-end demand on Manchester-Scotland services ? How many people stay on past Preston ? There really is no piece of logic you would not twist in an attempt to argue for a diminished service to Liverpool, let alone against any improvement to the current service

 

[Meerkat]

Well, if the rumoured timetable change reported by @scrapy turns out to be correct (see post #206) Kirkby could lose its direct service to Manchester again (after just getting it back last December), in order to free up a path for the Southport - Alderley Edge to be diverted to Victoria via Atherton. Kirkby line passengers would have to change at Wigan Wallgate or Bolton. A little ironic, since the Kirkby service does not go through the Castlefield corridor!

That isn’t long distance and would be cut off anyway in a sensible world where the split as at Skelmersdale !

 

[Mathew S]

Isn't the issue more the Atherton and Bolton lines than where you might stop west of Wigan?

Yeah, that's why they're all through services. Even the Kirkby trains now run up to Brewery Junction and reverse there, rather than reversing in a through platform at Victoria.

 

[Mathew S]

That isn’t long distance and would be cut off anyway in a sensible world where the split as at Skelmersdale !

Kirkby doesn't really matter, though, it's the direct Manchester services from Pemberton and Orrell that are well used in the peaks - or would be, if they worked.

A change is fine, I used the service daily back in 2016 during the Farnsworth tunnel works, changing at Wigan outbound, and Bolton return. The issue is planning the connections. Last year, when it was curtailed at Wigan, it was a ~30 minute wait for the connecting service to get home. I can walk from Wigan to Pemberton in that, let alone drive, so the whole service becomes pointless.

 

[Mathew S]

Well, if the rumoured timetable change reported by @scrapy turns out to be correct (see post #206) Kirkby could lose its direct service to Manchester again (after just getting it back last December), in order to free up a path for the Southport - Alderley Edge to be diverted to Victoria via Atherton. Kirkby line passengers would have to change at Wigan Wallgate or Bolton. A little ironic, since the Kirkby service does not go through the Castlefield corridor!

You'd be severing the link then not only between Southport and Piccadilly bit also Wigan and Piccadilly. If you thought the Southport mafia were vocal about that, there would be political uproar I'm GM were that to happen (and let's not forget that Lisa Nandy MP for Wigan is standing for the party leadership, so she's not going to be shy about shouting about it).
This is what I've always said about this problem, it's all very well proposing a solution that works for the railway, but if it's perceived *by passengers* as being worse, it'll go down like a carrier bag of cold sick. I know it's a pain to have from anywhere - to anywhere services, but it's what people have been promised, and been told for years is the best thing to have, so it's become the expectation.

Whether they improve punctuality and reliability or not, these changes would see shedloads of extra car journeys from the west into Manchester a day - me included amongst them.

 

[Greybeard33]

You'd be severing the link then not only between Southport and Piccadilly bit also Wigan and Piccadilly.

No, that set of proposals (see post #206) would preserve the hourly Cumbria to Manchester Airport service, so there would still be direct services from Wigan NW to Piccadilly. But Southport line passengers would have to change for Piccadilly, at Wigan, Bolton, Salford Crescent or Victoria.

In the short term, it is a case of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". Whichever services are diverted or curtailed, there will be political uproar from the areas affected. But the Northern local politicians in TfN seem to have collectively agreed that it would be even worse to allow the current congestion to continue until infrastructure improvements can be delivered.

I guess there will have to be a calculation as to which set of proposals would be least politically painful. Unfortunately for users of Pemberton and Orrell, they are less numerous than most of the alternative groups that might be affected.

 

[Mathew S]

No, that set of proposals (see post #206) would preserve the hourly Cumbria to Manchester Airport service, so there would still be direct services from Wigan NW to Piccadilly. But Southport line passengers would have to change for Piccadilly, at Wigan, Bolton, Salford Crescent or Victoria.

In the short term, it is a case of "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". Whichever services are diverted or curtailed, there will be political uproar from the areas affected. But the Northern local politicians in TfN seem to have collectively agreed that it would be even worse to allow the current congestion to continue until infrastructure improvements can be delivered.

I guess there will have to be a calculation as to which set of proposals would be least politically painful. Unfortunately for users of Pemberton and Orrell, they are less numerous than most of the alternative groups that might be affected.

Ahhh, okay. I thought it was Cumbria being severed too.

To be honest, then, as long as the connection to/from the Kirkby line is kept to roughly 10 mins or so each way, I don't think people will mind too much.

Is the idea that the Southport service would become the Atherton line stopper? Because in reality, Pemberton - Manchester via Bolton could be comparable, journey time wise, with the current direct service, it's so slow at the moment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the idea that the Southport service would become the Atherton line stopper?

It would make more sense for it to be the one starting at Wallgate if you were going to have 4tph. The Southports could go via Bolton.

I'd suggest using high-acceleration rolling stock like 195s on the Atherton services, then both could be all stations without unacceptable journey time increases.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ahhh, okay. I thought it was Cumbria being severed too.

To be honest, then, as long as the connection to/from the Kirkby line is kept to roughly 10 mins or so each way, I don't think people will mind too much.

Is the idea that the Southport service would become the Atherton line stopper? Because in reality, Pemberton - Manchester via Bolton could be comparable, journey time wise, with the current direct service, it's so slow at the moment.

As I understand it, the current Atherton line stopper would be diverted to go to Southport instead of Kirkby, in place of the current Stalybridge to Southport via Bolton. The Southport to Alderley Edge via Bolton would be diverted to go to Stalybridge via Bolton and Victoria instead, removing a service from the Castlefield corridor and replacing the current Victoria to Stalybridge shuttle (or looking at it another way, the current Southport to Stalybridge would be shifted in time by about half an hour). The Kirkby service would be retimed and go to Bolton in the path of the current Southport to Stalybridge, presumably terminating in Bolton P5. The TfW N Wales to Airport would be diverted to go to Stalybridge via Victoria, taking the path of the current Southport to Stalybridge (the timings appear to match). This would remove a second service from the corridor.

I am unclear which service would take over the hourly calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley, unless Network Rail can find a path for the Kirkby service to continue to Victoria, without conflicting with the TfW.