geordieblue
Member
The point I was making was that Alty passengers have not been concerned by their loss of fast trains (with the exception of a couple of whingers). Instead tram ridership has ballooned. Think you've misunderstood my point.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could stations in Manchester receive a better service?
- Thread starter Daniel740
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wonder was there any similar whining when Ormskirk lost its fast services, or if they all just used the EMU anyway. I suspect the latter.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I think that we should probably refer to the CLC services from Manchester to Liverpool as "semi-fast", rather than "fast" - IMHO the "fast" ones are the Chat Moss services that get between the cities in around 35 minutes compared to around 55 minutes from Piccadilly to Lime Street via Warrington.
For example, the 10:51 EMR service from Lime Street gets to Piccadilly at 11:41, but you could wait until 10:54 to get the TPE to Manchester and be at Victoria for 11:29 - i.e. the half hourly "semi fast" service through Warrington gets overtaken by the "fast" service via Chat Moss.
In both cases, being able to ride straight into the city centre without a walk at the end would've helped the "sell".
Purple Orange
On Moderation
There is a lot to unpick here. The UK is not ‘slipping down’ the economic league in a sense that it can impact upon our ability to build new infrastructure. The fact that the UK was the strongest economy in the 19th century and is now the 5th, 6th or 7th biggest economy (those three positions are relatively close and there is a big gap between the UK and Italy & Spain) does not mean we can’t build new roads, railways, airports, ports, power stations etc.
You also cite weakening financial strength, which I assume you are thinking in terms of the national debt as a result of covid (apologies if I am wrong on that assumption). The idea that the country is ‘bankrupt’ and that “there is no more money”, as some people put it, is nonsense. Events of this scale need to be paid for in the same way that we paid for WW2 and the abolition of British involvement in the slave trade, with payment spread out over many decades or even more than a century.
So given that the country has the ability to spend circa £4bn-£4.5bn per annum over 20 years, on a project that can facilitate improved travel across 5 different mainlines - HS2, WCML, ECML, MML, XC (Before people jump and say XC is not a mainline, the core will benefit just as much as the other lines) - it makes sense to press ahead and allow future generations to reap the benefits.
In the 19th century, the country had the highest national debt levels as a proportion of it’s GDP in it’s entire history up to that point, being over 100% for whole first half of the century. In that time, the UK government authorised the greatest programme of railway building we have ever seen. National debt next peaked at WW1, again higher in WW2 (reaching over 200%), where we then embarked upon creating the NHS, the welfare state, a whole network of airports and motorways. Now with Covid, national debt has again peaked, hitting 100% of GDP, where the government is looking at a comparatively small level of infrastructure investment with HS2.
Just so that daodao doesn't look like a lone voice, I'll say that I completely agree with his recent posts. I use the Warrington stations and would add a couple of points. Warrington has a through service to Sheffield which is well used and the town has lost out with the diversion of the TPE Scarborough service which was well used (especially to Huddersfield / Leeds). (That was diverted to free up capacity in the Piccadilly throat and not because it was not well used.) Electrification at 25kV preserves the route as part of the national network which allows through services to continue, EMU acceleration on stopping trains allows extra calls at less well-served stations. The services from Bank Quay to Manchester & Yorkshire are much slower and serve fewer destinations. There is quite a lot of cross-Warrington traffic these days so an Ormskirk-type operation at Warrington Central is a bad idea. I could see a future using dual voltage stock where some services go to Liverpool Central as part of the MerseyRail operation which would free up paths into Lime Street.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But look at what happened at Hale where the journey time to Manchester increased from 15 minutes to 30 minutes and the staion usage dropped off a cliff!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
With regard to EMU acceleration, would putting Class 195s on all workings on the route other than the EMR service help? Not only do they handle crowds well, but also they accelerate like an EMU, unlike 15x which are much more sluggish.
I would agree it needs electrification, be that tram wires and third rail, or be it 25kV, but that could bring the benefit in the short-term.
I would agree it needs electrification, be that tram wires and third rail, or be it 25kV, but that could bring the benefit in the short-term.
Could you imagine if these were also in contention for Castlefield slots. There are always some losers (yes Hale, but how about Stretford, Timperley...) - but Sale, Alty and Bury, the main towns on the original conversion, have never been as well-served.
Warrington to Liverpool might be a bit slow. But might be 4-6tph on brand new trains - vs 1-2tph on short little diesels. I think the difference of 10 mins ride would be made up by not having to consult a timetable, and different city centre locations. Plus folks may want to board at Warrington West.
I think you're right about the 195s and I have started to see them on the CLC stoppers recently. They should improve timekeeping with their acceleration. Also, with the wide 1/3-2/3 door spacing, dwell times at stations are quicker with 195s than 156s.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do you use this route? Warrington Central to Liverpool has 4 trains per hour today.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It does but only 2 of them (the fastest ones from your station) are relevant to any given journey outside of disruption.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think Northern may be starting, from what I read on here, to learn that these units are more suitable to local stopping services than long-distance, being basically CAF's version of the 172...that's a good development.
I think I see your logic (two trains are stoppers, two are limited stop) but it's not right. Because the trains don't overtake each other, if you're going from Warrington to Liverpool or reverse, you just get the first train of the 4tph. Same for South Parkway. Widnes has 3tph.
geordieblue
Member
Unfortunately you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If a huge improvement in transport provision for thousands of residents of a densely populated urban area results in a small town getting a slightly worse service, that is a price worth paying IMO. I also wouldn't rule out the idea that commuters from Hale will get to Alty and then take the tram.
Do you have any figures for this claim, by the way?
I'm aware of the frequency today. I only suggested 4tph because of Merseyrail's 15 min cycles. I would hope for 6tph. And those would call at all stations - not just 2tph fast.
to add to edit - what more could these reallocated CLC->MR services enable, in terms of releasing platforms and paths out of Lime St? We've not even covered that.
to add to edit - what more could these reallocated CLC->MR services enable, in terms of releasing platforms and paths out of Lime St? We've not even covered that.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
At the same time, Hale as an area is joined at the hip to Altrincham (in my mind it is part of the same town).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Let’s not forget that Warrington will most likely have at least 6 fast tph in to central Manchester, should the CLC be used for tram-train operation, which will probably be no more than 5 tph. It will always be a very well connected town.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And very few of the population of posh, leafy Hale won't have a Range Rover or two (other expensive SUVs are available) to drive to Altrincham for the tram.
Where do you get the 6 from? Presently it's 4, 2 from Central and 2 from BQ.
Cadishead would be a better Tram Train terminus than Warrington Central, which is too far away. Street running to Irlam, railway, then join Metrolink near Pomona or Cornbrook. Glazebury could be closed and the stopping services cut back to Lime Street - Irlam. Trafford Park to Irlam could be electrified with 25 KV.
Last edited:
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 8,339
A similar drop occurred at St. Helens Junction about 30 years ago, when its Trans Pennine services were rerouted via Warrington Central and the CLC route. An all-shacks stopping service, doubling the previous journey time, is never going to be popular -- and the same applies to Warrington Central. The main beneficiary of doubling the best journey time to Manchester will be the motor car industry.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Im stating 6 because if we are to seriously consider that the CLC will convert to tram train with 5 tph (requiring a tunnel through Central Manchester), we also need to seriously acknowledge that Warrington will have 4 NPR tph plus a TfW and Northern Connect fast from WBQ (assuming that they continue).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If there are 4tph of NPR, there is no case whatsoever to have fasts on the CLC.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Exactly. In which case 4 fast NPR, 5 tram-train all stop on the CLCplus X number of stoppers via WBQ. Pretty damn good.
geordieblue
Member
Which explains why nobody in Altrincham uses Metrolink and the conversion of that line has been a failure, with everyone driving instead.
Oh wait!
You're implying that people value speed over frequency and connectivity to the point at which they will drive instead. This has been proven to be untrue on multiple occasions (I've said it upthread but I'll say it again - look at Heworth). I'm afraid this argument is a complete non-starter.
daodao
Established Member
The main traffic generator on the CLC line for travel to Manchester is Warrington Central. The current service from Warrington comprises 2 tph fast trains taking 19-20 minutes to Oxford Road, 1 tph semi-fast service taking 28 minutes and 1 tph stopping service taking 36-37 minutes. This last service misses 2 stops (alternating on a 2 hourly basis) so that 4 stations only have a 2 hourly service. Replacing this by a 5 tph electric tram service taking 35-40 minutes, calling at all stations, would not be a service improvement for Warrington, the principal station on the line.
25 kV electrification, which I have suggested, would not particularly accelerate the service from Warrington, but would enable service frequency to be increased at intermediate stations to 2 tph (1 tph would suffice for Padgate and Glazebrook), thus enabling a useful half-hourly suburban service to be re-established for all stations within Greater Manchester. Unless and until an alternative fast service is established from Warrington (and Liverpool) to Manchester, this is all that should be done. Given that the estimated date for NPR is likely to be 2040 or beyond, if it is ever built, heavy rail 25 kV electrification is the best solution in the meantime.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
What I don’t understand about the anti-metrolink argument is the assumptions like what @daodao made about what is a sufficient tph volume at intermediate stations. We here often phrases like “2 tph will be sufficient for ‘station X’”, without ever considering the nature of the area around those stations.
If 10 tph is appropriate for Altrincham, Sale, Stratford, Timperley, etc why is it not appropriate for Irlam, Flixton, Urmston, Humphrey Park etc?
This is a report in to the volume of Manchester bound passengers from given stations in GM across national rail and light rail (note that this does not include passenger volumes returning from Manchester, therefore we need to double the figures to get total passenger usage at a station).
The clear message is how far more people use metrolink lines than national rail lines. Observe how few use stations along the line to Warrington Central vs the line to Altrincham. Clearly people value a high frequency service, where you don’t need to plan a part of your day around the train timetable.
By the way, could it be that a major reason Warrington Central is the biggest generator of passenger volume in to Manchester is because the intermediate stations have such a poor service? Warrington Central generates 1.7m passengers per annum, therefore let’s assume 1 million go to Manchester. That is fairly poor compared to the volume of passengers generated by metrolink, but more importantly, those people would more than likely use NPR by the time tram-trains arrive.
If 10 tph is appropriate for Altrincham, Sale, Stratford, Timperley, etc why is it not appropriate for Irlam, Flixton, Urmston, Humphrey Park etc?
This is a report in to the volume of Manchester bound passengers from given stations in GM across national rail and light rail (note that this does not include passenger volumes returning from Manchester, therefore we need to double the figures to get total passenger usage at a station).
The clear message is how far more people use metrolink lines than national rail lines. Observe how few use stations along the line to Warrington Central vs the line to Altrincham. Clearly people value a high frequency service, where you don’t need to plan a part of your day around the train timetable.
By the way, could it be that a major reason Warrington Central is the biggest generator of passenger volume in to Manchester is because the intermediate stations have such a poor service? Warrington Central generates 1.7m passengers per annum, therefore let’s assume 1 million go to Manchester. That is fairly poor compared to the volume of passengers generated by metrolink, but more importantly, those people would more than likely use NPR by the time tram-trains arrive.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd also be interested in how those people get there and where from. It has been quoted elsewhere that parking at Bank Quay was much more expensive than Central. That could be skewing their choice.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Can we at least agree that if/when Warrington has a station on NPR then we can then abandon the CLC to Merseyrail/ Metrolink? (bearing in mind that the Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester services are already overtaken by the faster Chat Moss services for passengers between the two cities)
Yes I think so. Metrolink is much better for intermediate stations. It would be at least 5-6tph, a massive uplift and boost for neighborhoods, as has been proven across Manchester.
Even with no NPR - Bank Quay would have 2tph to Manchester, adding the Cardiff would make it 3tph. This could always be improved too - a Calder service extension for example. Or something electric. Ideally there would be more, but equally if you worked in Salford Quays for instance, the Met might be quicker than today's services (the fasts skip Deansgate too). Add in waiting times, and end to end, a ~35 min trip might be better. Or ~25 to Cornbrook...
- Status