Future Northern Rail

[tbtc]

I like the idea of PTE based local operators - Leeds have invested in some quality commuter trains via METRO - I'd like to see similar done by SYPTE in South Yorkshire

Its a nice idea but the problem is that routes cross borders - of the twenty (approx) services to/from Sheffield each hour only one of those is contained within South Yorkshire (Adwick - Sheffield), however the return journey is not (it runs from Lincoln to Adwick via Sheffield).

The other routes at Sheffield run into Derbyshire, West Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire etc, so SYPTE wouldn't be able to control a self contained set of services.

Similarly whilst WY PTE/ Metro are influential most services through Leeds run into South Yorkshire/ Greater Manchester/ North Yorkshire etc. I don't think a separate West Yorkshire franchise would work.

Furthermore, I'd like the local operators to be able to shape the franchise specification to suit their local area. So if SYPTE (say) wanted new trains i.e. not pacers, they could make that clear in the franchise spec, understanding that fairs may increase slightly for that improvement.

As well as the problems above there's also the issue of each PTE ordering different stock. What we really need is one big order of Pacer replacements - we've seen the problems caused by tiny classes (e.g. 180s) - we don't need more small ones.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Its a nice idea but the problem is that routes cross borders - of the twenty (approx) services to/from Sheffield each hour only one of those is contained within South Yorkshire (Adwick - Sheffield), however the return journey is not (it runs from Lincoln to Adwick via Sheffield).

The other routes at Sheffield run into Derbyshire, West Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire etc, so SYPTE wouldn't be able to control a self contained set of services.

Similarly whilst WY PTE/ Metro are influential most services through Leeds run into South Yorkshire/ Greater Manchester/ North Yorkshire etc. I don't think a separate West Yorkshire franchise would work.



As well as the problems above there's also the issue of each PTE ordering different stock. What we really need is one big order of Pacer replacements - we've seen the problems caused by tiny classes (e.g. 180s) - we don't need more small ones.

With SYPTE this is where my sheffield Xrail plan comes into action :P

But yeah in current form SYPTE can do very little so i wish theyd invest in the tram a bit more at the moment with no heavy rail rpospects. They cant even open the stocksbridge line for gods sake. :/ Not insulting SYPTE exactly but they dont seem to doa great deal compared to other PTEs

 

[northwichcat]

I wouldn't be *that* shocked. When ATN used to run services you had some with First Class (e.g. 158s on transpennine routes) and some without, meaning trains from Leeds to Huddersfield were all run by the same TOC but not all had First Class.

Whether you're shocked or not I'm sure the relevant TOC would get thousands of emails from passengers on the subject.

The rolling stock question if you moved Liverpool-Norwich or Manchester Airport-Cleethorphes is relevant though. Would you divide the 185s between operators or not? If not how would you divide the stock up? The only sensible alternative to 185s on Liverpool-Norwich instead of TPE North West would be 185s on Calder Vale/York to Blackpool and more 158s to EMT for Airport-Cleethrophes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The difficulty I have with that proposal above ^^^ is that it seems to simply divide the current LM area into electric and diesel sections on the basis of the current electrified areas - but what happens following any future infill electrification, such as Bromsgrove?

You could also have an issue on Sundays during engineering works. The West Coast electric franchise can't divert their services down non-electrified lines while the West Coast diesel franchise has diesel units sitting out-of-use.

 

[sulli_os]

Different PTEs ordering different rolling stock I don't see as a problem - have them stored and maintained within the PTE area, and all is sorted.

If a cross boundary service runs mostly in one PTE area then that area should run it, so Sheffield - Scunthorpe would be SYPTE run.

Change a few diagrams to get rid of silly non-symmetrical stuff like the Lincoln - Adwick / Scunthorpe - Lincoln.

Finally, have a large-scale northern franchise to run things which are truly inter-regional, so Sheffield - Manchester etc.

I realise none of these would come easy, they're more ideal world suggestions. But sending decision making power downwards is mean to be the in thing.

[As a bonus, SYPTE could actually build a platform at Parkgate as planned 10 years or so ago, one at Waverly (former Orgreave pit site) and get the "Don-Valley Rail" proposal going, rather than being told there is no money, but plenty to connect two bits of London that are already connected...]

 

[142094]

Problem with keeping them in all one PTE area is that some don't have adequate maintenance depots. Nexus would have Heaton, WYPTE would have Neville Hill, TfGM would have Newton Heath, but Merseytravel or SYPTE wouldn't have much.

Best idea would be for a large order of 3-4 carriage trains to replace the Pacers, with options for replacing the 15xs after a few years. Common parts, common couplings and corridor connections.

 

[tbtc]

Whether you're shocked or not I'm sure the relevant TOC would get thousands of emails from passengers on the subject.

Really?

As I've said on here some lines have one TOC offering different service levels (some trains have a trolley/ First Class, some trains don't). People around the UK seem to manage with this - as long as the timetable shows which facilities are available on board.

The rolling stock question if you moved Liverpool-Norwich or Manchester Airport-Cleethorphes is relevant though. Would you divide the 185s between operators or not? If not how would you divide the stock up? The only sensible alternative to 185s on Liverpool-Norwich instead of TPE North West would be 185s on Calder Vale/York to Blackpool and more 158s to EMT for Airport-Cleethrophes.

We are talking a while in the future, after which the Lancashire Triangle should have freed up a dozen or so 185s (assuming no resumption of the Windermere service!), so its all very hypothetical, but I think that a common fleet of 158s for EMT would make sense, with the 185s being used for Scarborough - Blackpool (if that happens, as has been rumoured).

You could also have an issue on Sundays during engineering works. The West Coast electric franchise can't divert their services down non-electrified lines while the West Coast diesel franchise has diesel units sitting out-of-use.

This is one of the arguments I've seen people use for Virgin keeping 221s on Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (despite being 100% electrified) - "...because they are handy for WCML diversions...". Realistically though, are we allocating stock for everyday use or for a handful of weekends of engineering work?

 

[ainsworth74]

This is one of the arguments I've seen people use for Virgin keeping 221s on Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (despite being 100% electrified) - "...because they are handy for WCML diversions...". Realistically though, are we allocating stock for everyday use or for a handful of weekends of engineering work?

Further to that, whats wrong with 390+57 drags during engineering work? Seems to work fine for the service out to Holyhead so why not use it for diversions over non-electrified lines during engineering work?

 

[tbtc]

With SYPTE this is where my sheffield Xrail plan comes into action :P

But yeah in current form SYPTE can do very little so i wish theyd invest in the tram a bit more at the moment with no heavy rail rpospects. They cant even open the stocksbridge line for gods sake. :/ Not insulting SYPTE exactly but they dont seem to doa great deal compared to other PTEs

This is a problem which PTEs have. Its much easier to control trams, which run wholly within your boundaries.

So GMPTE/ TfGM can spend lots of their money on improving tram lines (something I wish SYPTE would do). Metro in West Yorkshire, however, have no trams, so have spent their share of the money on rail improvements instead (AIUI they don't have more money to spend, but they don't have any tram lines to spend the money on, so can concentrate that cash on trains instead)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Further to that, whats wrong with 390+57 drags during engineering work? Seems to work fine for the service out to Holyhead so why not use it for diversions over non-electrified lines during engineering work?

I'd agree with you there.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Really?




This is one of the arguments I've seen people use for Virgin keeping 221s on Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (despite being 100% electrified) - "...because they are handy for WCML diversions...". Realistically though, are we allocating stock for everyday use or for a handful of weekends of engineering work?

If only we had a fleet of locos that could drag pendilinos......

I agree with you there its not really fair for the odd weekend a year they keep chucking out fumes on entirely under the wire routes. Plus XC need them.

Well the 185's freed up from NW are probably going to just strengthen services. Can anyone cleverer than me tell me whether enough 158's woulld be free'd up by york/scarbrough blackpool converted to 185 operationt to then allow south TPE to be working in a common pool with liverpool norwich?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Further to that, whats wrong with 390+57 drags during engineering work? Seems to work fine for the service out to Holyhead so why not use it for diversions over non-electrified lines during engineering work?

beat me to it

 

[northwichcat]

Really?

As I've said on here some lines have one TOC offering different service levels (some trains have a trolley/ First Class, some trains don't). People around the UK seem to manage with this - as long as the timetable shows which facilities are available on board.

You only have to look at this forum to see how many times the lack of 1st class on Liverpool-Norwich has been mentioned and think how many people are registered on here compared to how many people use the Liverpool-Norwich service at some point.

with the 185s being used for Scarborough - Blackpool (if that happens, as has been rumoured).

I think you need to remember that the new TPE, Northern, East Coast and West Coast franchises will be awarded in the next couple of years. TPE North electrification at earliest will probably get reviewed in around 2017, to start electrifying the lines in 2019, so you're probably talking about using 185s on North TPE for the whole of the next franchise.

This is one of the arguments I've seen people use for Virgin keeping 221s on Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh (despite being 100% electrified) - "...because they are handy for WCML diversions...". Realistically though, are we allocating stock for everyday use or for a handful of weekends of engineering work?

I don't think you understand. It's nothing to do with using diesel units under wires - it's about having flexibility within fleets to allow train services to run during engineering works.

Imagine the TPE franchise is the same routes as present but they use EMUs on Manchester Airport-Scotland and the Bolton route hasn't been electrified. Now imagine every Sunday for 3 months the line through Wigan is closed for engineering works. As TPE have DMUs for other services which aren't used on Sunday they can run some trains between Manchester Airport and Scotland via Bolton.

Now if Manchester Airport-Scotland was a Virgin route and Virgin only had electric traction - that mean's replacement bus services while TPE have diesel stock sitting around doing nothing.

 

[87019Chris]

I don't think you understand. It's nothing to do with using diesel units under wires - it's about having flexibility within fleets to allow train services to run during engineering works.

Imagine the TPE franchise is the same routes as present but they use EMUs on Manchester Airport-Scotland and the Bolton route hasn't been electrified. Now imagine every Sunday for 3 months the line through Wigan is closed for engineering works. As TPE have DMUs for other services which aren't used on Sunday they can run some trains between Manchester Airport and Scotland via Bolton.

Now if Manchester Airport-Scotland was a Virgin route and Virgin only had electric traction - that mean's replacement bus services while TPE have diesel stock sitting around doing nothing.

But thats what you are not getting. It's the fact that no badly that virgin hate to use the 57/3's they have them its what they were made for dragging the pendolinos, when they arent under the wires and it means that a longer train can run with less need for driver traing for just one day a week in a 3 month period for TPE you can just use virgin 57 drivers that would be kept on the pay roll for this reason and also they have minimum of 10 57's that do naff all all day, most days so there is enough to do drags between manchester and were ever all day on a sunday.

 

[northwichcat]

But thats what you are not getting. It's the fact that no badly that virgin hate to use the 57/3's they have them its what they were made for dragging the pendolinos, when they arent under the wires and it means that a longer train can run with less need for driver traing for just one day a week in a 3 month period for TPE you can just use virgin 57 drivers that would be kept on the pay roll for this reason and also they have minimum of 10 57's that do naff all all day, most days so there is enough to do drags between manchester and were ever all day on a sunday.

In the scenario I was describing (engineering works at Wigan) the 57s would already be needed for Glasgow to London and Birmingham to Edinburgh services. Getting more diesel locos just for engineering works would be a much worse solution!

 

[87019Chris]

In the scenario I was describing (engineering works at Wigan) the 57s would already be needed for Glasgow to London and Birmingham to Edinburgh services. Getting more diesel locos just for engineering works would be a much worse solution!

Theres not that many sunday services and Im sure that there is already enough once they come off the WAG as well

 

[Waverley125]

Mixing the more-or-less totally separate Merseyrail system with other lines is not a good idea.

However, what about splitting the stopper services so that they cover metropolitan areas? What I mean is, instead of having a stopper going from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria, have an extra one going from Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay and another one going from Bank Quay to Victoria. This way, it's clear that if you want to go from Liverpool & Manchester, you should use the faster services. I know that this would not be without complications in 2011, but perhaps after electrification, the northern hub improvements and hopefully, some four-tracking and passing places for fast trains, as well as more fast trains per hour, this may be possible.

Also, if all the long distance services are re-routed away from the CLC route, then perhaps the Merseyrail Northern Line could be extended from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, with a Northern stopper service (perhaps under a TfGM scope, maybe even branding) could do Warrington Central to Manchester stations.

Sorry for the lack of clarity, this is basically what i proposed.

I.e. services on the Mid Cheshire line & lines out of Lime Street would be all-stoppers, but terminate at the respective boundaries of the commuter areas.

So, taking the Manchester-Liverpool line, you would have for instance

GMPTE:
Manchester Picadilly-Warrington Central (all stops)
Manchester Victoria-St Helens Junction (all stops)

Merseyrail:
Liverpool Lime St-Warrington Central (all stops)
Liverpool Lime Street-Warrington Bank Quay via St Helens Junction (all stops)

Northern Regional

Stockport-Liverpool Lime St (Piccadily, Oxford Rd, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington Central, Sankey, Widnes, Liverpool SP, Liverpool Lime St)

Rochdale-Liverpool Lime St (Victoria, Eccles, Newton le Willows, St Helens Junction, Huton, Liverpool Lime St)

Northern Intercity

Hull-Liverpool Lime St (Selby, Leeds, Huddersfield, Victoria, St Helens Junc., Liverpool Lime St)

Newcastle-Liverpool Lime St (Durham, Darlington, York, Leeds, Huddersfield, Piccadilly, Warrington Central, Widnes, Liverpool SP, Liverpool Lime St)


with regard to the question on the Mid-Cheshire line, this was a suggestion that the GM rail operator would run a Northwich-Picc. 'all shacks', and ATW/Northern Regional a semi fast to Chester via Northwich, which could extended to Llandudno or elsewhere.

This would also be covered by the 'Northern Intercity' to Holyhead, which would call:

Selby, Leeds, Huddersfield, Victoria, Warrington Bank Quay, Runcorn East, Chester, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llanududno Junction, Bangor, Holyehad.

Similarly the Liverpool-Crewe service would be an 'all shacks' stop, with the Birmingham service continuing under LM or ICWC.

 

[northwichcat]

Theres not that many sunday services and Im sure that there is already enough once they come off the WAG as well

Well if there's no other engineering works affecting the WC network during that period - which would be unlikely.

Just looking at the planned WC engineering works there is actually engineering works meaning Virgin can't run on the Warrington-Wigan-Preston section on Sundays between 28th August and 25th September. Also on the 28th August there is engineering work in the Birmingham area meaning services are diverted and engineering works in the Milton Keynes area meaning only a limited service can go through Milton Keynes.

I haven't at anytime said that diesel locos aren't an option in such circumstances, just that diesel units usually used on other services will be sitting around spare on Sunday and could be made use of during engineering works if operators have a mix of electric and diesel units. If it's one or the other then there's less options available.

Stockport-Liverpool Lime St (Piccadily, Oxford Rd, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington Central, Sankey, Widnes, Liverpool SP, Liverpool Lime St)

You do realise the Stockport viaduct is at maximum capacity, unless this is replacing an existing service at Stockport it will need to be tagged on to the existing service from either Buxton or Chester.

with regard to the question on the Mid-Cheshire line, this was a suggestion that the GM rail operator would run a Northwich-Picc. 'all shacks', and ATW/Northern Regional a semi fast to Chester via Northwich, which could extended to Llandudno or elsewhere.

I like that idea but unless you propose linking the Mid Cheshire line with the Airport line or removing an existing service, then again there is no path.

Similarly the Liverpool-Crewe service would be an 'all shacks' stop, with the Birmingham service continuing under LM or ICWC.

How would the proposed LM changes fit in with that? The suggestion is for:

1tph Liverpool-Birmingham runs Runcorn-Crewe non-stop.
1tph Preston-Birmingham - giving back some of the benefits that have been lost by Virgin removing stops e.g. making Crewe to Warrington every 30 minutes again.
1tph Manchester-Stoke-Stone-Birmingham (replaces existing Northern service to Stoke with XC Manchester-Bournemouth service diverted via Crewe)
1tph Liverpool-Trent Valley-London (not via Stone) calls at Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Acton Bridge (limited service), Hartford and Winsford.

 

[LE Greys]

Another thread I can't believe I missed.

I've often said I would go for a complete split into a pre-grouping system for Northern, to try to produce three competing rail networks in Yorkshire and Lancashire, with intruding lines in Cumberland and Westmorland. They would also be merged with the relevant Intercity operator, while inter-regional services would either be worked jointly or transferred to XC, which I reckon ought to be made an open-access operator.

Basically, it would work like this.

London and North Eastern
All of East Coast, plus:

• Newcastle-Chathill stoppers
• Newcastle-Middlesbrough/Nunthorpe
• Bishop Auckland-Saltburn
• Newcastle-Carlisle
• Esk Valley
• Hull-Scarborough
• Harrogate Line
• Hull-Leeds-York-Doncaster routes
• Pontefract Line
• Dearne Valley, but temporarily, until the Roundwood Chord can be rebuilt to passenger status, allowing the NE/Mid split
• Wakefield Line

Trans-Pennine NE is another option, but I tend to think of that as an inter-regional route to go to XC.

London Midland (note name transfer)
East Midland, except for Norwich-Liverpool, plus:

• Leeds/Bradford-Settle-Carlisle, Airedale locals and Leeds Bradford FS shuttle
• Little North Western (Leeds-Morecambe)
• Wharfedale Line
• Hallam Line, in fact all Leeds-Nottingham
• Penistone Line
• Hope Valley Line
• Sheffield-Cleethorpes
• Barton-on-Humber branch
• Possibly South Trans-Pennine

London North Western
Virgin Trains
London Midland
Plus:

• All Trans-Pennine NW
• Cumberland Coast
• York-Blackpool North (although XC would be another option)
• Colne-Blackpool South
• Manchester/Liverpool-Preston-Blackpool
• Preston-Hazel Grove (Preston-Ormskirk goes to Merseyrail)
• Bolton-Manchester
• Manchester-Blackburn-Clitheroe
• Rochdale-Southport-Kirkby
• Liverpool-Manchester Airport/Ellesmere Port
• Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester
• Manchester-Altrincham-Chester
• Manchester-Crewe/Stoke locals
• Buxton Line (unless reconnected to Matlock, then the Midland gets it)
• Manchester Airport shuttle
• Manchester-New Mills-Rose Hill Marple
• Woodhead Stump
• Manchester-Castleton-Rochdale/Littleborough
• Calder Vale Line
• Huddersfield Line locals (although I would prefer that this route heads onwards for Hull rather than diverting onto the Midland's Kirkgate route)
• Leeds-Bradford Interchange shuttle

Genuine inter-regionals would go to XC, including Norwich-Liverpool, but I would consider giving TPX South to the Midland. There would also be a shake-up in the Midlands, with Peterborough-Lincoln-Doncaster, Grantham-Nottingham and the Skegness Line going to LNER, and some London Midland locals in Birmingham (on the NE-SW axis) going to the genuine Midland. This might include the Cross-City Line, although that includes some LNWR elements. Still, that is outside the purview of this discussion.

 

[YorkshireBear]

.

Basically, it would work like this.

London and North Eastern
All of East Coast, plus:

• Newcastle-Chathill stoppers
• Newcastle-Middlesbrough/Nunthorpe
• Bishop Auckland-Saltburn
• Newcastle-Carlisle
• Esk Valley
• Hull-Scarborough
• Harrogate Line
• Hull-Leeds-York-Doncaster routes
• Pontefract Line
• Dearne Valley, but temporarily, until the Roundwood Chord can be rebuilt to passenger status, allowing the NE/Mid split
• Wakefield Line

Trans-Pennine NE is another option, but I tend to think of that as an inter-regional route to go to XC.

London Midland (note name transfer)
East Midland, except for Norwich-Liverpool, plus:

• Leeds/Bradford-Settle-Carlisle, Airedale locals and Leeds Bradford FS shuttle
• Little North Western (Leeds-Morecambe)
• Wharfedale Line
• Hallam Line, in fact all Leeds-Nottingham
• Penistone Line
• Hope Valley Line
• Sheffield-Cleethorpes
• Barton-on-Humber branch
• Possibly South Trans-Pennine

London North Western
Virgin Trains
London Midland
Plus:

• All Trans-Pennine NW
• Cumberland Coast
• York-Blackpool North (although XC would be another option)
• Colne-Blackpool South
• Manchester/Liverpool-Preston-Blackpool
• Preston-Hazel Grove (Preston-Ormskirk goes to Merseyrail)
• Bolton-Manchester
• Manchester-Blackburn-Clitheroe
• Rochdale-Southport-Kirkby
• Liverpool-Manchester Airport/Ellesmere Port
• Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester
• Manchester-Altrincham-Chester
• Manchester-Crewe/Stoke locals
• Buxton Line (unless reconnected to Matlock, then the Midland gets it)
• Manchester Airport shuttle
• Manchester-New Mills-Rose Hill Marple
• Woodhead Stump
• Manchester-Castleton-Rochdale/Littleborough
• Calder Vale Line
• Huddersfield Line locals (although I would prefer that this route heads onwards for Hull rather than diverting onto the Midland's Kirkgate route)
• Leeds-Bradford Interchange shuttle

While i agree in principle i think the leeds locals should be in the hands of east coast who would run the expresses into leeds. Leeds carlisle would be tagged onto leeds nottingham and run under XC the rest i pretty much agree with.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

London Midland

Only trouble with those is that whenever I see those I just see the old regions. LM especially makes me think London-Birmingham-Carlisle area, not the East Midlands.

 

[Waverley125]

How would the proposed LM changes fit in with that? The suggestion is for:

1tph Liverpool-Birmingham runs Runcorn-Crewe non-stop.
1tph Preston-Birmingham - giving back some of the benefits that have been lost by Virgin removing stops e.g. making Crewe to Warrington every 30 minutes again.
1tph Manchester-Stoke-Stone-Birmingham (replaces existing Northern service to Stoke with XC Manchester-Bournemouth service diverted via Crewe)
1tph Liverpool-Trent Valley-London (not via Stone) calls at Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Acton Bridge (limited service), Hartford and Winsford

I don't know what pathing problems weould exist with it, but what I'd envisage would be an all shacks service again, calling something like (possible newly opened merseyrail stations in brackets)

CREWE
Winsford
Hartford
Acton Bridge
Runcorn
(Hale Bank)
(Halewood South)
Liverpool South Parkway
West Allerton
Mossley Hill
(Wavertree)
Edge Hill
LIVERPOOL LIME STREET

 

[northwichcat]

Only trouble with those is that whenever I see those I just see the old regions. LM especially makes me think London-Birmingham-Carlisle area, not the East Midlands.

I'd say don't refer to any operators as London something unless they only run London services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

West Allerton
Mossley Hill
(Wavertree)
Edge Hill
LIVERPOOL LIME STREET

West Allerton gets 2tph to Liverpool and 2tph to Manchester and gets 37,000 passengers per annum. Mossley Hill gets the same and gets 305,326 passengers per annum.

Edge Hill gets 102,600 passengers per annum and gets 5tph to Liverpool, 1tph to Manchester Oxford Rd, 1tph to Manchester Victoria/Stalybridge, 2tph to Wigan and 1tph to Warrington BQ (Manchester Vic at peak times.)

I'd say West Allerton and Edge Hill get plenty of services without introducing any new ones considering the number of passengers. 2tph in each direction should be sufficient for Mossley Hill but maybe some extra peak time calls there could be beneficial.

 

[Gareth]

The other routes at Sheffield run into Derbyshire, West Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire etc, so SYPTE wouldn't be able to control a self contained set of services.

This doesn't stop London Underground/Overground services going into Hertfordshire. Nor does it stop Merseyrail services going into Lancashire or Cheshire.

I don't think rail services should just stop dead on political boundaries, but I do feel that stopping services in urban areas should reflect metropolitan areas. Certainly, I think that anyone going from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria should do the journey on a faster train. Hopefully, in the future, capacity and infrastructure on the Chat Moss will allow both more fast and more slow trains to make such a model possibly.

Quite simply, I'd have the following stopper services out of Lime Street...

to Wigan North Western (as it is, at least 2tph)
to Warrington Bank Quay (as it is but higher frequency, replacing Manc Vic stoppers, at least 2tph)
to Crewe (2tph_
to Chester (via the Halton Curve, at least 2tph).

For the latter two, I'd add stations at Wavertree, Penny Lane and Ditton. Wavertree, Penny Lane, Mossley Hill and West Allerton would have 4tph giving a service similar to Merseyrail.

Furthermore, I'd extend the Merseyrail Northern Line from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, if all fast services were to go via Chat Moss instead.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This doesn't stop London Underground/Overground services going into Hertfordshire. Nor does it stop Merseyrail services going into Lancashire or Cheshire.

I don't think rail services should just stop dead on political boundaries, but I do feel that stopping services in urban areas should reflect metropolitan areas. Certainly, I think that anyone going from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria should do the journey on a faster train. Hopefully, in the future, capacity and infrastructure on the Chat Moss will allow both more fast and more slow trains to make such a model possibly.

Quite simply, I'd have the following stopper services out of Lime Street...

to Wigan North Western (as it is, at least 2tph)
to Warrington Bank Quay (as it is but higher frequency, replacing Manc Vic stoppers, at least 2tph)
to Crewe (2tph_
to Chester (via the Halton Curve, at least 2tph).

For the latter two, I'd add stations at Wavertree, Penny Lane and Ditton. Wavertree, Penny Lane, Mossley Hill and West Allerton would have 4tph giving a service similar to Merseyrail.

Furthermore, I'd extend the Merseyrail Northern Line from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, if all fast services were to go via Chat Moss instead.

I think he means that is why SYPTE are not as keen at investing in heavy rail because all the routes go out of the PTE area compared to WYPTE which have a lot that stay in the area.

 

[northwichcat]

Nor does it stop Merseyrail services going into Lancashire or Cheshire.

The River Mersey is the traditional boundary between Lancashire and Cheshire from Stockport to New Brighton. The name Merseyrail has existed longer than the Metropolitan area of Merseyside.

Furthermore, I'd extend the Merseyrail Northern Line from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, if all fast services were to go via Chat Moss instead.

It's never been the proposal to send all fast services via Chat Moss. The proposal is for Liverpool-Scarborough to go that way after the Ordsall Chord and then send the Liverpool-Manchester Airport express via Warrington in place of the Liverpool-Scarborough. Diverting the EMT service has been looked at but the conclusion seems to be that it would be too difficult to divert it and would more likely slow down the service opposed to speed it up.

Warrington needs to retain express trains to both Liverpool and Manchester as much as Huddersfield needs to be served by North TPE.

 

[Gareth]

I think he means that is why SYPTE are not as keen at investing in heavy rail because all the routes go out of the PTE area compared to WYPTE which have a lot that stay in the area.

That's probably true, but very often it's in the PTE's interest to link with outside areas. Linking Chester to Liverpool meant more people could commute from Chester to Liverpool or shop in Liverpool, as an example. It's always good to have your core city at the centre of an urban transport network. Likewise, Sheffield with places such as Chesterfield. The main thing with SYPTE, along with GMPTE/TfGM, is that their tram systems are their pride and joy. MPTE's is Merseyrail.

The River Mersey is the traditional boundary between Lancashire and Cheshire from Stockport to New Brighton. The name Merseyrail has existed longer than the Metropolitan area of Merseyside.

Yes, but Merseyrail is mostly under the influence of Merseytravel, which doesn't officially cover anywhere outside Merseyside.

It's never been the proposal to send all fast services via Chat Moss. The proposal is for Liverpool-Scarborough to go that way after the Ordsall Chord and then send the Liverpool-Manchester Airport express via Warrington in place of the Liverpool-Scarborough. Diverting the EMT service has been looked at but the conclusion seems to be that it would be too difficult to divert it and would more likely slow down the service opposed to speed it up.

Warrington needs to retain express trains to both Liverpool and Manchester as much as Huddersfield needs to be served by North TPE.

Well, it's up in the air at the moment. The only other long distance service on the CLC is Liverpool-Norwich. Even if it was diverted, long distance services could go from Warrington Bank Quay instead, including to Lime Street. If anything, it'd be good if Warrington had one, clear long distance station.

 

[142094]

The problem is that any taxpayer in a PTE area would want to know why they are funding improvements to another local authority area. This is one of the stumbling blocks for the reopening of both the Leamside Line and Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Line. Some of it is within Nexus's remit and the rest isn't. Although I would dearly like to see both reopened, I don't want my taxes to pay for improvements outside of the area I live. Some money has to come from those other local authorities, which in this example would be Northumberland County Council or Durham County Council.

 

[Gareth]

Yes, the PTE would have to negotiate with third party authorities, but it can be done.

 

[142094]

It can, but it doesn't happen very often. One way of looking at things would be to see what benefit there is to a PTE area by taking cars off the road travelling into that area from counties outside. Newcastle and Sunderland both have increasing problems with traffic and car-based commuters coming in from feeder areas such as Durham, Ashington and Blyth (all outside the Nexus area). So any rail link which would take this cars off the roads in Tyne and Wear would be excellent. However the main focus seems to be on improvements in the PTE area, which still leaves the problems on the A1 and A19 in the peak rush hours.

Same goes for Metro in West Yorkshire, to a lesser extent due to the fact that it borders SYPTE and TfGM areas.

 

[northwichcat]

Well, it's up in the air at the moment.

The level of frequency on both lines is pretty much set in stone. It's the final destinations that aren't.

The Chat Moss line will have one express service and two stopping services. The CLC will have two expresses two stopping.

The only thing relating to frequency that's still up in the air is whether Chat Moss will have a second additional express giving 4 express services between Liverpool and Manchester, which is what Merseytravel want.

The only other long distance service on the CLC is Liverpool-Norwich. Even if it was diverted, long distance services could go from Warrington Bank Quay instead, including to Lime Street. If anything, it'd be good if Warrington had one, clear long distance station.

Have you thought how that'll work?

Liverpool to Warrington BQ is a longer distance than Liverpool to Warrington Ctl and Manchester to Warrington BQ is a longer distance than Manchester to Warrington Ctl. Liverpool-Warrington BQ-Manchester would involve a reversal on a busy section of the WCML.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That's probably true, but very often it's in the PTE's interest to link with outside areas. Linking Chester to Liverpool meant more people could commute from Chester to Liverpool or shop in Liverpool, as an example. It's always good to have your core city at the centre of an urban transport network. Likewise, Sheffield with places such as Chesterfield. The main thing with SYPTE, along with GMPTE/TfGM, is that their tram systems are their pride and joy. MPTE's is Merseyrail.

COmpletely agree just got confused as to what was being said. I'd like to think the tram was SYPTE pride and joy but they dont show it.....

 

[tbtc]

It's never been the proposal to send all fast services via Chat Moss. The proposal is for Liverpool-Scarborough to go that way after the Ordsall Chord and then send the Liverpool-Manchester Airport express via Warrington in place of the Liverpool-Scarborough

At the moment Manchester Airport - Chat Moss - Liverpool is DMU operated.

When the Lancashire Triangle is electrified, this will be a wholly electrified route, allowing EMUs to run and replace DMUs.

Diverting this service back via Warrington would mean having to still keep DMUs for this service, thus negating part of the benefit of electrifying lines in this area (under this plan all three of the current "fast" Liverpool - Manchester services would remain DMU operated).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's probably true, but very often it's in the PTE's interest to link with outside areas. Linking Chester to Liverpool meant more people could commute from Chester to Liverpool or shop in Liverpool, as an example. It's always good to have your core city at the centre of an urban transport network. Likewise, Sheffield with places such as Chesterfield.

I agree that its good to have links to "bordering" places.

However, of the six trains an hour from Sheffield to Chesterfield the final destinations are

• Plymouth/Cornwall (doesn't stop at Chesterfield)
• Reading/ Southampton
• London
• London
• Nottingham
• Norwich

(beyond Sheffield these services extend to Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh etc)

So, none of them are really "local" enough for SYPTE to influence much (unlike the Merseyrail lines which are clearly truncated at Chester etc).

I think the solution would be to have a "Yorkshire" PTE which could influence services a lot better, and be big enough to have a positive impact.

The main thing with SYPTE, along with GMPTE/TfGM, is that their tram systems are their pride and joy. MPTE's is Merseyrail.

I agree. I think its worth pointing this out, since some think that West Yorkshire have too much influence on the Northern franchise - the reason is really just because they have no pretty trams to focus on, so have concentrated their influence and money on trains (hence funding/ owning units, maintaining cheap fares etc)