Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[4-SUB 4732]

How would we be able to fix that though - I didn't think there was a possible way of a Stalybridge - Piccadilly train to carry on to the Airport, unless it ran through Ashton and Victoria (or possibly even Phillips Park instead of Ashton, but this wouldn't be logical)

Also, as for having 2x trains per hour stopping at the Stalybridge - Huddersfield local stations - I thought there was simply not enough space on this line for this to happen. Unless something's changed?

There is space for 6tph between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with 2tph stopping, with a bit of smart timetabling and effectively banning freight during the time you operate 6tph.

 

[Watershed]

How would we be able to fix that though - I didn't think there was a possible way of a Stalybridge - Piccadilly train to carry on to the Airport, unless it ran through Ashton and Victoria (or possibly even Phillips Park instead of Ashton, but this wouldn't be logical)

Also, as for having 2x trains per hour stopping at the Stalybridge - Huddersfield local stations - I thought there was simply not enough space on this line for this to happen. Unless something's changed?

You can reverse in the main shed. Of course that requires crossing the Fast Lines at some point. Even worse in the opposite direction - the Up Slow and Down East also need to be crossed.

There's sufficient capacity for 2 stopping trains an hour (plus 4 express), but only if the Hull acts as a stopper west of Huddersfield. Understandably, Hull, Brough and Selby passengers aren't too keen on that!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You can reverse in the main shed. Of course that requires crossing the Fast Lines at some point. Even worse in the opposite direction - the Up Slow and Down East also need to be crossed.

There's sufficient capacity for 2 stopping trains an hour (plus 4 express), but only if the Hull acts as a stopper west of Huddersfield. Understandably, Hull, Brough and Selby passengers aren't too keen on that!

Although invariably they’ll jump out at Leeds, the stopped they’re on will be overtaken at Mirfield, and the swanky 802 they’re on will zoom to Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet that is going to be the case for Liverpool services. 4 fast tph, which should enable a turn-up-and-go service, but it’s split 2 at Piccadilly and 2 at Victoria. That is not good enough.

The limitation there (unless you send them all to Picc) is that the CLC can't reach Vic, unless you build a "reverse Ordsall chord".

 

[Greybeard33]

One of the few things that detracts from option C is the peak hour variations. They complicate matters and this option would be improved if they were removed, for example, all trains from Southport and Wigan should run to Victoria.

The consultation document says:

Over the coming weeks, work will continue to refine the options and particularly to optimise the arrangements for the additional peak services traditionally required across all options. The Task Force will continue with the assessment timetabling and performance modelling work to ensure we have the best evidence as well as the responses to this consultation before making a recommendation for a decision in Spring 2021.

That suggests the Task Force itself is not entirely happy with the rather messy peak variations in all the options.

If the view is taken that WFH will reduce demand post-Covid for "traditional" peak extras, the final recommended option might have a more consistent all day service pattern, perhaps with more strengthening in the peaks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the view is taken that WFH will reduce demand post-Covid for "traditional" peak extras, the final recommended option might have a more consistent all day service pattern, perhaps with more strengthening in the peaks.

Given that most of the North West operates to a Monday-Saturday timetable, it would probably make sense (Southport arguments aside) to do platform extension works so that strengthening rather than extra services can work well. Perhaps aim for 6x24m platforms on all routes?

 

[Purple Orange]

The limitation there (unless you send them all to Picc) is that the CLC can't reach Vic, unless you build a "reverse Ordsall chord".

Or someone takes the bold decision to curtail Liverpool fasts via the CLC and just have a high frequency stopper on the line, with fast Liverpool services concentrated on the Chat Moss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or someone takes the bold decision to curtail Liverpool fasts via the CLC and just have a high frequency stopper on the line, with fast Liverpool services concentrated on the Chat Moss.

There's no room for 4tph of fasts on Chat Moss unless you were to 4-track the whole thing. There are too many local stations on the Liverpool side for it to work.

 

[Ianno87]

Or someone takes the bold decision to curtail Liverpool fasts via the CLC and just have a high frequency stopper on the line, with fast Liverpool services concentrated on the Chat Moss.

There's no room for 4tph of fasts on Chat Moss unless you were to 4-track the whole thing. There are too many local stations on the Liverpool side for it to work.

Depends whether "concentrated" just means simply having 2tph via Chat Moss and leaving it at that.

The 2tph via Warrington aren't really "fast" in the same way, and there's not much point in them trying to be. Hence moving them to pick up a few extra stops whilst leaving a reasonable-ish journey time.

 

[Purple Orange]

There's no room for 4tph of fasts on Chat Moss unless you were to 4-track the whole thing. There are too many local stations on the Liverpool side for it to work.

Well that is that idea put to bed then! Perhaps as @Ianno87 said, maybe 2 tph (but 8-car) on the Chat Moss, but again with a better frequency of stoppers on the CLC. This route is going to become a stopping service eventually.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends whether "concentrated" just means simply having 2tph via Chat Moss and leaving it at that.

The 2tph via Warrington aren't really "fast" in the same way, and there's not much point in them trying to be.

True. The OP however was complaining about the fast Liverpool service being split between the two, and I don't think they envisaged the fix to that to be just to remove the two services from Picc as that isn't really a fix - you can just ignore them and go to Vic if you want!

 

[yorksrob]

The 2tph via Warrington aren't really "fast" in the same way, and there's not much point in them trying to be.

For the distance, they're a reasonable speed though. I think the trip would be a bit heavy going if all journeys were all-shacks.

 

[Ianno87]

For the distance, they're a reasonable speed though. I think the trip would be a bit heavy going if all journeys were all-shacks.

All shacks is excessive, I agree. But adding stops at some of the busier intermediates (e.g. Urmston) has merit, which in turn means some of the smaller stations (e.g. Humphrey Park) can at least get a service every hour in the stoppers with the pathing eased.

 

[yorksrob]

All shacks is excessive, I agree. But adding stops at some of the busier intermediates (e.g. Urmston) has merit, which in turn means some of the smaller stations (e.g. Humphrey Park) can at least get a service every hour in the stoppers with the pathing eased.

Yes, there's possibly scope for a semi-fast.

I do find it a pretty good service though.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

There is space for 6tph between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with 2tph stopping, with a bit of smart timetabling and effectively banning freight during the time you operate 6tph.

You can reverse in the main shed. Of course that requires crossing the Fast Lines at some point. Even worse in the opposite direction - the Up Slow and Down East also need to be crossed.

There's sufficient capacity for 2 stopping trains an hour (plus 4 express), but only if the Hull acts as a stopper west of Huddersfield. Understandably, Hull, Brough and Selby passengers aren't too keen on that!

Thanks for the information - I never knew there was space for 2tph stopping from Huddersfield to Stalybridge

 

[158756]

There is space for 6tph between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with 2tph stopping, with a bit of smart timetabling and effectively banning freight during the time you operate 6tph.

I can't find a non-Covid timetable now, but between Stalybridge and Huddersfield the stoppers only just fit, if the preceding fast train is even a couple of minutes late the stopper will get in the way of the next one. This can't be good for performance, and adding a second stopper doubles the risk.

If everything from Huddersfield ran to Victoria the stopper(s) would have to be overtaken somewhere, not sure if the signalling allows it at Stalybridge?

 

[Jack Hay]

Or someone takes the bold decision to curtail Liverpool fasts via the CLC and just have a high frequency stopper on the line, with fast Liverpool services concentrated on the Chat Moss.

That overlooks that the CLC provides a fast train to Warrington, which is very well used - so much so that premium fares are charged for Manchester-Warrington (higher fares than Liverpool-Warrington which is a longer journey). The railway has always done very well out of Manchester-Warrington. They're not going to give that up. Victoria to WBQ is no subsititute - it's a lot further and cannot be made nearly as fast. In business, it's not a bold decision to curtail your winners - it's destructive.

 

[Killingworth]

You could instead alight at Stockport and catch the 199 bus to Manchester Airport, which runs express via the Motorway and takes 15 minutes (or 20 at peak times.) You would have to walk to the end of Station Rd to the bus stop but that's a much shorter distance than you'll have to walk from the airport station to any of the departure halls at the airport.

It may even be cheaper to buy a Stockport PlusBus ticket than to buy a ticket to Manchester Airport.

As long I can drive I'll be avoiding public transport to Manchester Airport! Waiting for a half hourly 199 bus at Stockport has no appeal.

For me the direct service from Sheffield would have meant going back and changing in Sheffield during most of the day. Taking the stopper and changing at Piccadilly to a fairly frequent train would be the alternative - with 195s that's not too bad an option, but still well beaten by the car.

My fear is that neither B nor C improves cross Manchester performance from Liverpool and we end up with even more very late eastbound services for everyone.

Back in those halcyon days of 2014 or thereabouts there were going to be two extra hourly fast services between Sheffield and Manchester. By 2016 it was pruned back to one, and by early 2020 that wasn't looking too certain either. It's looking like an all but deceased duck now.

 

[Watershed]

I can't find a non-Covid timetable now, but between Stalybridge and Huddersfield the stoppers only just fit, if the preceding fast train is even a couple of minutes late the stopper will get in the way of the next one. This can't be good for performance, and adding a second stopper doubles the risk.

If everything from Huddersfield ran to Victoria the stopper(s) would have to be overtaken somewhere, not sure if the signalling allows it at Stalybridge?

Having 4tph fast and 2tph slow which share a common section of just 18 miles isn't particularly onerous when compared to what some other lines do.

Stalybridge does allow overtaking, but as it has 3 through platforms this can only be done in one direction at a time. The layout is better suited to segregating trains by destination (Picc vs Vic).

 

[Ianno87]

Having 4tph fast and 2tph slow which share a common section of just 18 miles isn't particularly onerous when compared to what some other lines do.

Stalybridge does allow overtaking, but as it has 3 through platforms this can only be done in one direction at a time. The layout is better suited to segregating trains by destination (Picc vs Vic).

The layout was designed to permit a stopper to Picc to get out of the way of a fast to Vic and vice-versa.

 

[Kieran1990]

I can't find a non-Covid timetable now, but between Stalybridge and Huddersfield the stoppers only just fit, if the preceding fast train is even a couple of minutes late the stopper will get in the way of the next one. This can't be good for performance, and adding a second stopper doubles the risk.

If everything from Huddersfield ran to Victoria the stopper(s) would have to be overtaken somewhere, not sure if the signalling allows it at Stalybridge?

The signalling does allow for it, Manchester bound stopper in 1 can looped by a fast in 3. It can also work to the Hudds direction- slow in 3 or 4 and be looped on either.
You then into an issue of looping 4 trains an hour respectively by 4 fast (2 in each direction) over a single bi-directional track.
Plus the junction at Stayley isn’t built for fast movements- think it’s 40mph

 

[Ianno87]

The signalling does allow for it, Manchester bound stopper in 1 can looped by a fast in 3. It can also work to the Hudds direction- slow in 3 or 4 and be looped on either.
You then into an issue of looping 4 trains an hour respectively by 4 fast (2 in each direction) over a single bi-directional track.
Plus the junction at Stayley isn’t built for fast movements- think it’s 40mph

But less elegant; the stopping service must sit for at least 6 minutes to be overtaken.

 

[Geeves]

6 trains over the Huddersfield line requires everything running exactly to time which is why they gave up last time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But less elegant; the stopping service must sit for at least 6 minutes to be overtaken.

I don't think elegant is important. What's important is to be punctual and reliable to a very high degree indeed.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think elegant is important. What's important is to be punctual and reliable to a very high degree indeed.

Journey times matter too. Otherwise people will just drive rather than sit around at Stalybridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Journey times matter too. Otherwise people will just drive rather than sit around at Stalybridge.

True, but 6 minutes is a bit de-minimis (if you aren't standing in the cold), and it's more important to be a bit slower but very punctual and reliable than to be a bit quicker but hardly ever achieving that. (There are as an example a few peak-time LNR services on which the timetable is utterly fictitious and unachievable, and just needs to be changed to represent what actually happens). Another great example is the 30 minute Euston-MKC time which seems not to be achieved more often than it is, with sloppy 2-3 minute delays all over the place.

 

[Ianno87]

True, but 6 minutes is a bit de-minimis (if you aren't standing in the cold), and it's more important to be a bit slower but very punctual and reliable than to be a bit quicker but hardly ever achieving that. (There are as an example a few peak-time LNR services on which the timetable is utterly fictitious and unachievable, and just needs to be changed to represent what actually happens). Another great example is the 30 minute Euston-MKC time which seems not to be achieved more often than it is, with sloppy 2-3 minute delays all over the place.

Unfortunately, passengers (especially commuters) really don't like sitting around on relatively short journeys.

Imagine you're a Manchester-Greenfield/Mossley commuter. How irritating would sitting at Stalybridge for 6 minutes every single day (only to go 1-2 stations further) quickly become....?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, passengers (especially commuters) really don't like sitting around on relatively short journeys.

Nor do passengers from Southport like losing their Castlefield service. Nor do Wiganers like losing their fast service entirely. However, if that's the thing to do to improve the situation, and a 6 minute wait at Staly is as well, then that's that.

Isn't the whole point of all this improving things for the greater good?

 

[Greybeard33]

True, but 6 minutes is a bit de-minimis (if you aren't standing in the cold), and it's more important to be a bit slower but very punctual and reliable than to be a bit quicker but hardly ever achieving that.

But how would looping the stoppers at Stalybridge improve punctuality or reliability? All three Task Force options have the two stoppers peeling off to Piccadilly at Stalybridge, so getting out of the way of the following fasts that go to Victoria.

If a stopper is delayed, the fast will catch it up before Stalybridge regardless.

 

[Ianno87]

Nor do passengers from Southport like losing their Castlefield service. However, if that's the thing to do to improve the situation, and a 6 minute wait at Staly is as well, then that's that.

Isn't the whole point of all this improving things for the greater good?

Southport = A minority of passengers having to change trains, for the people bound for Oxford Road

Stalybridge = 6 minutes added to every single passenger journey across Stalybridge on those trains