Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[4-SUB 4732]

Eh? Warrington is a significant business centre in the North West, suitable for such because of its location on the M6 and WCML. Though quite a lot of it is out of town, e.g. by Birchwood station, rather than in the middle. People going from the WCML to there via Central might be some of those interchanges perhaps?

Is it reason to potentially screw Manchester, such as to have North Wales to Warrington as an hourly flow?

 

[peters]

The new route via Northwich will be a good 20 minutes longer. With four stops minimum (Northwich, Knuts, Alty, Stockport - but you know Hale will want in) and some slow sections, I can see it being 30 mins longer at times.

• The Mid Cheshire line probably can't accommodate a really fast service with reliable operation, because of additional freight traffic and several single track sections. Diverting the N Wales service via this route is likely to lengthen the journey time and also destroys potential connections at Warrington BQ for Lancashire and Scotland. I don't see why it cannot run to M/c Victoria via Warrington BQ in lieu of one of the Leeds to Chester trains. The proposal for the North Wales service in option C clearly treats Gogs very shabbily.

I've noticed in RTT on occasions that both Northern and TfW Rail have sent empty trains between Manchester and Chester in the middle of the day which only taken around 65 minutes to get from end to end. If they can do that at the last minute then why can't a fast service be planned in? I can't see how diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham could possibly take 30 minutes longer, even the all-stops service from Chester to Manchester via Altrincham is only around 25 minutes slower than a TfW service from Chester to Manchester via Warrington.

Looking at the train times for today it looks like the Glasgow service departs Warrington Bank Quay just before the North Wales service arrives and the Edinburgh just after. That means you need the North Wales service to be on time if you want to board the Edinburgh service and it's probably quicker to change twice if you want Penrith or Glasgow. Southbound the reverse applies with the Glasgow train providing a connection, if it's on time and the Edinburgh service arriving just after the North Wales departure.

Also, worth remembering a North Wales to Altrincham service will connect with Metrolink services and it will reach Altrincham much faster than the existing service reaches Piccadilly and it will be an easier interchange. In the Manchester direction there's no steps or ramps to use when changing between rail and Metrolink, in the westbound direction it'll require stairs or lifts but still much more straight forward then getting between platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly and the Metrolink platforms.

I seem to recall @daodao that you live in the Altrincham area but you always seem to oppose improvements to public transport in your area, maybe you are happy to park and ride and don't want subsides being spent on services you won't use but others need the services you don't want and local businesses can benefit from improvements.

 

[peters]

I believe Northern offered terminating mid-Cheshire services at Altrincham or Stockport to the user group as an option to provide 2tph at a previous timetable change, but it fell through.

Old Northern (Serco/Abellio) actually opposed an option for a single train being used on an Northwich to Altrincham shuttle service, as they thought it would mean more people would use Metrolink for the Altrincham to Manchester section and would affect their revenue. New Northern (Arriva) proposed using the trains which would have been used on Greenbank to Manchester on Chester to Altrincham instead but Network Rail said upgrades to farm level crossings needed to be undertaken first.

But it gives a second hourly train to the principal stations on the Mid Cheshire Line, which they were supposed to get in 2017, and it's the only option that does. Expect Option C to get wide support in Cheshire and Altricnham for that reason.

I also expect the proposal for half-hourly airport to Crewe services to go down well, every time there's any form of transport consultation people say about improved airport links and that change will be providing just that. It should also make Wilmslow to the airport by train a more attractive option for those who would first have to get a bus to Wilmslow station.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that if anyone wishes to post any ideas/suggestions for what they think should happen, or they would like to see happen, the relevant thread for that, in the appropriate forum section, can be found here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-castlefield-again.204599/

Thanks

(If this thread simply duplicates that one, we may end up merging into that one, but we'd like to try to keep it separate if we possibly can)

 

[Greybeard33]

I also expect the proposal for half-hourly airport to Crewe services to go down well, every time there's any form of transport consultation people say about improved airport links and that change will be providing just that. It should also make Wilmslow to the airport by train a more attractive option for those who would first have to get a bus to Wilmslow station.

With 2tph between Crewe and the Airport in Option C, that might become a better route from N Wales and Chester than via Manchester. Depending on connection times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With 2tph between Crewe and the Airport in Option C, that might become a better route from N Wales and Chester than via Manchester. Depending on connection times.

It is a double-change, though, the Chester-Crewe shuttle is a right faff. Shame there can't be a Crewe portion on the Holyhead-Cardiff instead.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It is a double-change, though, the Chester-Crewe shuttle is a right faff. Shame there can't be a Crewe portion on the Holyhead-Cardiff instead.

You’ll have a level of Avanti traffic to use...

 

[Eccles1983]

So North Wales, Chester and surrounding areas on the Wirral, Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby all lose the Airport/Oxford road but it's fine for Redcar to keep it?

That's going to be a very hard sell to local councils.

A lot of commuters fill them trains every single day and night in normal times. Even with the Northern service taking some strain they were still full to bursting.

The passenger counts will fall through the floor if it has to go around the houses through the Mid Cheshire line.

 

[The Planner]

I've noticed in RTT on occasions that both Northern and TfW Rail have sent empty trains between Manchester and Chester in the middle of the day which only taken around 65 minutes to get from end to end. If they can do that at the last minute then why can't a fast service be planned in? I can't see how diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham could possibly take 30 minutes longer, even the all-stops service from Chester to Manchester via Altrincham is only around 25 minutes slower than a TfW service from Chester to Manchester via Warrington.

It isn't quite as cut and dried as that and depends on whether those are planned ECS moves or whacked in by control on a VSTP basis. The latter tend to be a bit more fast and loose in terms of path quality by their very nature.

 

[Jack Hay]

Where there's a will, there's a way. The benefit of removing services from Lancaster and north thereof from the Castlefield line is worth the cost - it is investing to save.

Unfortunately, there isn't the will. The report says there will be no infrastructure enhancements between now and the start date of the revised timetable, whichever one it is.

 

[Glenn1969]

But it also says there will be at some stage after that so the May 22 timetable will be a base for that work to build on

My view is that the head says Option C but politicians in most areas will back Option A

 

[Jack Hay]

But more or less "significant" than the various other flows around Manchester and the North West the railway has to cater for? The report suggests Option C, on balance, benefits more passengers than lose out in connectivity terms.

How "significant" are the passengers getting on at Warrington and remaining on board beyond Chester?

How does this "significance" vary by time of day and the week, is it just some busy trains at certain times rather than being busy every single hour?



I wonder how many people do that anyway, given that direct via the M56 is more direct and faster than even the current rail service via Castlefield.

Freinds of mine in Chester all go to Manchester Airport by car, which takes 40-45 minutes. By train it takes 80-85 minutes. I think the through train to the airport is little used. Of course, if in future the Manchester Airport Western Link were to be built, then the train via the Mid Cheshire becomes a very good route to the airport. For now, a coach connection from Knutsford or Altrincham station, timed to meet the train, is worth looking into.

 

[Ianno87]

Unfortunately, there isn't the will. The report says there will be no infrastructure enhancements between now and the start date of the revised timetable, whichever one it is.

It's not "will". Plenty of that, I'm sure. It's simply practical reality. Add in infrastructure into the mix and "May 22" for sorting this won't be possible at all.

 

[Jack Hay]

But it also says there will be at some stage after that so the May 22 timetable will be a base for that work to build on

My view is that the head says Option C but politicians in most areas will back Option A

I'm interested to know why you think they will go for Option A. I can't yet judge the politics of this.

 

[Ianno87]

Freinds of mine in Chester all go to Manchester Airport by car, which takes 40-45 minutes. By train it takes 80-85 minutes. I think the through train to the airport is little used. Of course, if in future the Manchester Airport Western Link were to be built, then the train via the Mid Cheshire becomes a very good route to the airport. For now, a coach connection from Knutsford or Altrincham station, timed to meet the train, is worth looking into.

Did National Express do Chester -> Manchester Airport? With Covid timetables, hard to find journey times/frequency.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I'm interested to know why you think they will go for Option A. I can't yet judge the politics of this.

Option A is a politicians dream. Least possible rocking of the boat, journey variety, and they can sit behind it and pretend they fought for passengers.

Even if Option C is most sensible.

 

[Glenn1969]

Because it involves the least amount of change to current services and I think Sheffield and Liverpool keep their Airport services

 

[Ianno87]

Option A is a politicians dream. Least possible rocking of the boat, journey variety, and they can sit behind it and pretend they fought for passengers.

Even if Option C is most sensible.

Because it involves the least amount of change to current services and I think Sheffield and Liverpool keep their Airport services

Option A is the only one that scores negative for passenger connectivity benefits. Because it only takes some current (pre-Covid) services away without really using the opportunity to make anything better (other than performance); it's a net loss from a connectivity perspective.

 

[Jack Hay]

I've noticed in RTT on occasions that both Northern and TfW Rail have sent empty trains between Manchester and Chester in the middle of the day which only taken around 65 minutes to get from end to end. If they can do that at the last minute then why can't a fast service be planned in? I can't see how diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham could possibly take 30 minutes longer, even the all-stops service from Chester to Manchester via Altrincham is only around 25 minutes slower than a TfW service from Chester to Manchester via Warrington.

Looking at the train times for today it looks like the Glasgow service departs Warrington Bank Quay just before the North Wales service arrives and the Edinburgh just after. That means you need the North Wales service to be on time if you want to board the Edinburgh service and it's probably quicker to change twice if you want Penrith or Glasgow. Southbound the reverse applies with the Glasgow train providing a connection, if it's on time and the Edinburgh service arriving just after the North Wales departure.

Also, worth remembering a North Wales to Altrincham service will connect with Metrolink services and it will reach Altrincham much faster than the existing service reaches Piccadilly and it will be an easier interchange. In the Manchester direction there's no steps or ramps to use when changing between rail and Metrolink, in the westbound direction it'll require stairs or lifts but still much more straight forward then getting between platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly and the Metrolink platforms.

I seem to recall @daodao that you live in the Altrincham area but you always seem to oppose improvements to public transport in your area, maybe you are happy to park and ride and don't want subsides being spent on services you won't use but others need the services you don't want and local businesses can benefit from improvements.

You make a very good point about North Wales to Altrincham and I am sure this will have been included in the benefits modelling. If your final destination in Greater Manchester is served by Metrolink, this change could speed up the journey considerably. For example, suppose the journey is Chester or N.Wales to Old Trafford - it will be much faster via Altrincham than via WBQ.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Option A is the only one that scores negative for passenger connectivity benefits. Because it only takes some current (pre-Covid) services away without really using the opportunity to make anything better (other than performance); it's a net loss from a connectivity perspective.

The big gain with option C (ignoring the shouting from the Southport direction) is it moves in the right direction - towards a consistent Takt.

 

[Jack Hay]

I think you can get all stations done.

Assume a service leaving Warrington Central (a fast one) at XX00 and XX30. If one stops at Birchwood, one does Urmston; Irlam hardly needs more than half-hourly at an average of 600 people going out and back a day even at peak), it hits Castlefield Jn at XX19 and XX49.

Bring a unit out of Central sidings, into the platform at XX03 and away at XX07 (and XX37), and they hit Castlefield at XX42 and XX12. You therefore can add some recovery time, but it is clear that the trains need to follow each other within minutes westbound out of Deansgate and will need to be reasonably tight at Central eastbound.

One assumes the Liverpool to Warrington Central services will also be shunted into and off the sidings - good thing there’s two of them...

You're right in what you say, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that you can't run an all-stations service on the CLC from Lime St to Oxford Road between the twice-hourly semi-fasts. It doesn't fit because the sheer number of stations means the all-stations takes too long and delays the next semi-fast. That's why today's stoppers are skip-stop except at the very start and end of the day (when the semi-fasts are only hourly). To make an all-stations service fit, you have to split the stoppers at Warrington Central. That's how it was done years ago and that's why there are the sidings and crossovers at WAC to enable it. There used to be a rather slick shunting 'dance' at WAC every hour, when two stoppers would arrive together, both would shunt into the sidings, then two expresses would call there at the same time in each direction, the two stoppers would come back out of the sidings and depart in each direction as soon as possible after the expresses.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You're right in what you say, but that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that you can't run an all-stations service on the CLC from Lime St to Oxford Road between the twice-hourly semi-fasts. It doesn't fit because the sheer number of stations means the all-stations takes too long and delays the next semi-fast. That's why today's stoppers are skip-stop except at the very start and end of the day (when the semi-fasts are only hourly). To make an all-stations service fit, you have to split the stoppers at Warrington Central. That's how it was done years ago and that's why there are the sidings and crossovers at WAC to enable it. There used to be a rather slick shunting 'dance' at WAC every hour, when two stoppers would arrive together, both would shunt into the sidings, then two expresses would call there at the same time in each direction, the two stoppers would come back out of the sidings and depart in each direction as soon as possible after the expresses.

The point I’m making is that at least split, the service can run. This is surely better, as the flows in the Flixton and Padgate sort of places is likely to be biased to Manchester; Sankey and wherever else west of Warrington will be Liverpool. And, on top of that, if the express is effectively behind the stopper each way then you’re getting on a fast train from your likely workplace (Liverpool or Manchester) and then same-platform dropping into a unit home. You might need to change but the journey time will potentially reduce by a shade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point I’m making is that at least split, the service can run. This is surely better, as the flows in the Flixton and Padgate sort of places is likely to be biased to Manchester; Sankey and wherever else west of Warrington will be Liverpool. And, on top of that, if the express is effectively behind the stopper each way then you’re getting on a fast train from your likely workplace (Liverpool or Manchester) and then same-platform dropping into a unit home. You might need to change but the journey time will potentially reduce by a shade.

Yes, true - people do use those sorts of connection particularly where it will get held because to do otherwise completely messes up the timetable. I have often quoted the connection at Leighton Buzzard from the 1816 Euston-Brum to Bletchley - in normal cases, about 50 people use this because it's same-platform and basically never misses because if the Southern went out first it'd delay the semifast considerably as it calls at Bletchley.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Did National Express do Chester -> Manchester Airport? With Covid timetables, hard to find journey times/frequency.

There is (or was) some kind of express bus service Chester-Manchester Airport, but it started at Shrewsbury and called at Wrexham.
The Chester stop was at a lay-by near the "Post House" roundabout at the A483/A55 junction.
I think it was twice a day, so pretty useless for most.
Easybus I think.

Chester-Airport via Crewe is viable, I go that way sometimes (it can be quicker than waiting for the direct train, and certainly a nicer trip).
Was limited by the 1tph Crewe-Airport, which was also fairly useless early and late.
If it goes to 2tph that makes things much better.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There is (or was) some kind of express bus service Chester-Manchester Airport, but it started at Shrewsbury and called at Wrexham.
The Chester stop was at a lay-by near the "Post House" roundabout at the A483/A55 junction.
I think it was twice a day, so pretty useless for most.
Easybus I think.

Chester-Airport via Crewe is viable, I go that way sometimes (it can be quicker than waiting for the direct train, and certainly a nicer trip).
Was limited by the 1tph Crewe-Airport, which was also fairly useless early and late.
If it goes to 2tph that makes things much better.

In theory 2tph from Chester to Crewe, and 2tph from Crewe to Airport in future; of which 1tph could, if the Government put a tiny top-up order of 80x units onto Avanti, be from North Wales all day.

My argument where I live is that if I live in, for example, Greenhithe and go to Lewisham, I'd rather 2tph to Dartford that don't stop at Lewisham and 2tph connections, than 1tph through. If the 1tph is cancelled, I effectively lose an hour. If my train, or the connecting train, is cancelled I lose a maximum of 45 minutes, realistically.

Chester to Airport via Crewe will be the best for it, and enhancing connectivity between North Wales and Crewe will surely be the priority, especially as in future Crewe Hub will be a calling point for HS2 Scottish traffic so therefore making Warrington even less attractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory 2tph from Chester to Crewe, and 2tph from Crewe to Airport in future; of which 1tph could, if the Government put a tiny top-up order of 80x units onto Avanti, be from North Wales all day.

If you could have Avanti go to Holyhead (or at least Bangor) hourly the shuttle could be binned off.

 

[TheSel]

Did National Express do Chester -> Manchester Airport? With Covid timetables, hard to find journey times/frequency.

There is (or was) some kind of express bus service Chester-Manchester Airport, but it started at Shrewsbury and called at Wrexham.
The Chester stop was at a lay-by near the "Post House" roundabout at the A483/A55 junction.
I think it was twice a day, so pretty useless for most.
Easybus I think.

Chester-Airport via Crewe is viable, I go that way sometimes (it can be quicker than waiting for the direct train, and certainly a nicer trip).
Was limited by the 1tph Crewe-Airport, which was also fairly useless early and late.
If it goes to 2tph that makes things much better.

It depends how far back you want to go. Crosville ran such a service 4 times a day back in 1982 (plus some short journeys), from the centre of the City, taking roughly 75 minutes. Timetable extract below:

 

[tbtc]

Option C, all day long. I'd go as far as to say that anyone wanting the status quo/ A/ B is in denial about how fragile and finite the paths through Manchester are.

It'd upset a small number of people but so will everything - if we are going to base the pattern of rail services in northern England on how noisy a minority of people are going to be then we'll never see any progress.

For example, I'm perfectly happy with Sheffield losing its Manchester Airport service (which it's had since the 'nineties, if not before - I can't remember) - I've used the direct train to the Airport in the past - but it's not worth the complications of reversing at Piccadilly, crossing the junctions on the flat, the "cost" of running a diesel service under the wires of the Airport branch... it'll inconvenience a few people, it may inconvenience me at some stage in the future, but it'd be better to run everything through to Liverpool - it'd make a much simpler service, it'd allow things to recover better in the event of disruption (since presumably you'd have the same TOC/ crews/ units doing both the Nottingham and Cleethorpes services). I'd be similarly okay if all of Sheffield's services swapped from "Pic" to "Vic", as long as there was no significant time penalty (which, clearly, given the single track line through Denton, there would be, but I'm not going to get precious about where in central Manchester my train stops - however I would be annoyed if the service was split between Pic/Vic - keep it all at one central station.

The same goes on other lines too - I've argued over and over again on here about it being better to simplify the mess of services - and the idea of four Preston - Bolton - Piccadilly - Airport services and four Wigan Wallgate - Victoria services is a great place to start. People know where to go in Manchester for their train home, rather than the confusion of which station to head to and hope that they get there in time.

A half hourly Chester - Calder Valley service is a similarly positive thing - not because there's huge demand to get from Runcorn to Rochdale but because you'd running from an unelectried line to an unnelectrified line using the same kind of middle distance DMUs (e.g. 158s), a half hourly service being much easier to understand and much more resilient in the event of things going wrong. Maybe if we didn't have devolution you could retain the Wales - Warrington - Manchester service as one of these trains to West Yorkshire (BR used to run services from Yorkshire to Wales), but TfW

Unfortunately , I can't see this reasonable set of proposals from happening because you just know that the reaction is going to be "by all means simplify things for other people but I don't see why *I* should have to have my services changed" from a few noisy people. But, realistically, we've got the situation where Piccadilly has the "A-list" services (to Birmingham/ London etc), which means everyone questioned in minor towns/villages are going to want *their* services to go to Pic rather than Vic, but we just don't have the capacity for that. Similarly, anyone asked "would you like your little town to have a through Airport service" then people will want it. I'd rather my cake had a cherry on top than no cherry. It's just that there's not enough capacity for everyone to have a Piccadilly service (or an Airport service/ Castlefield service etc). If your answer is "spend hundreds of millions on additional platforms at Piccadilly plus electrify dozens of miles of line" then, great, but that's not going to help things by 2022, even if you get the DIY SOS team in to try to build it all.

Give everywhere a good service into Manchester, give passengers a reliable network so that they don't need to cross reference two timetables before they know which Manchester station to head to for their train home, improve reliability by smoothing out the service patterns (e.g. rather than the situation of Piccadilly - Airport having nine trains an hour but a seventeen minute gap!) - Keep It Simple Stupid!

But, please, save me from the idea that everyone else's services should be changed in the interests of "resilience and connectivity" just so that your own favourite line can get a service to where it did when you were a lad...

 

[Jack Hay]

The point I’m making is that at least split, the service can run. This is surely better, as the flows in the Flixton and Padgate sort of places is likely to be biased to Manchester; Sankey and wherever else west of Warrington will be Liverpool. And, on top of that, if the express is effectively behind the stopper each way then you’re getting on a fast train from your likely workplace (Liverpool or Manchester) and then same-platform dropping into a unit home. You might need to change but the journey time will potentially reduce by a shade.

Yes, you're right. We agree on this. Warrington Central is well set up to handle this kind of operation, too.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Option C, all day long. I'd go as far as to say that anyone wanting the status quo/ A/ B is in denial about how fragile and finite the paths through Manchester are.

It'd upset a small number of people but so will everything - if we are going to base the pattern of rail services in northern England on how noisy a minority of people are going to be then we'll never see any progress.

For example, I'm perfectly happy with Sheffield losing its Manchester Airport service (which it's had since the 'nineties, if not before - I can't remember) - I've used the direct train to the Airport in the past - but it's not worth the complications of reversing at Piccadilly, crossing the junctions on the flat, the "cost" of running a diesel service under the wires of the Airport branch... it'll inconvenience a few people, it may inconvenience me at some stage in the future, but it'd be better to run everything through to Liverpool - it'd make a much simpler service, it'd allow things to recover better in the event of disruption (since presumably you'd have the same TOC/ crews/ units doing both the Nottingham and Cleethorpes services). I'd be similarly okay if all of Sheffield's services swapped from "Pic" to "Vic", as long as there was no significant time penalty (which, clearly, given the single track line through Denton, there would be, but I'm not going to get precious about where in central Manchester my train stops - however I would be annoyed if the service was split between Pic/Vic - keep it all at one central station.

The same goes on other lines too - I've argued over and over again on here about it being better to simplify the mess of services - and the idea of four Preston - Bolton - Piccadilly - Airport services and four Wigan Wallgate - Victoria services is a great place to start. People know where to go in Manchester for their train home, rather than the confusion of which station to head to and hope that they get there in time.

A half hourly Chester - Calder Valley service is a similarly positive thing - not because there's huge demand to get from Runcorn to Rochdale but because you'd running from an unelectried line to an unnelectrified line using the same kind of middle distance DMUs (e.g. 158s), a half hourly service being much easier to understand and much more resilient in the event of things going wrong. Maybe if we didn't have devolution you could retain the Wales - Warrington - Manchester service as one of these trains to West Yorkshire (BR used to run services from Yorkshire to Wales), but TfW

Unfortunately , I can't see this reasonable set of proposals from happening because you just know that the reaction is going to be "by all means simplify things for other people but I don't see why *I* should have to have my services changed" from a few noisy people. But, realistically, we've got the situation where Piccadilly has the "A-list" services (to Birmingham/ London etc), which means everyone questioned in minor towns/villages are going to want *their* services to go to Pic rather than Vic, but we just don't have the capacity for that. Similarly, anyone asked "would you like your little town to have a through Airport service" then people will want it. I'd rather my cake had a cherry on top than no cherry. It's just that there's not enough capacity for everyone to have a Piccadilly service (or an Airport service/ Castlefield service etc). If your answer is "spend hundreds of millions on additional platforms at Piccadilly plus electrify dozens of miles of line" then, great, but that's not going to help things by 2022, even if you get the DIY SOS team in to try to build it all.

Give everywhere a good service into Manchester, give passengers a reliable network so that they don't need to cross reference two timetables before they know which Manchester station to head to for their train home, improve reliability by smoothing out the service patterns (e.g. rather than the situation of Piccadilly - Airport having nine trains an hour but a seventeen minute gap!) - Keep It Simple Stupid!

But, please, save me from the idea that everyone else's services should be changed in the interests of "resilience and connectivity" just so that your own favourite line can get a service to where it did when you were a lad...

I think this basically is what I would say too. Realistically, consultations are awful as people get wound up and then don't like the outcome. You are better off just saying "We're doing this, because we've worked out it's the best thing for it", and then people will deal with it.

Where I live, at peak time, we get 6tph to Charing Cross, 3tph to Victoria and 3tph to Cannon Street. It annoys the living hell out of me, and I've advocated for a solid 5-minutely service to Cannon Street only now for a while. Why? Because that way, I know to be standing at London Bridge and if the train turns up and its a bit full, I'll get the one right after, a-la the Tube. And if I need Denmark Hill, or Victoria, or wherever else, I'll just change. I'll factor it into my journey time.

But yeah, fingers crossed people from the Wigan and Southport areas just accept that they can swap at Salford. Or, they can grab a tram from Victoria / walk from Salford Central to Deansgate.