Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Ianno87]

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.

Or at least use consultations to pick up anything major that hasn't been considered, or anybody losing out disproportionately.

 

[Llandudno]

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...

Spot on, great post!

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

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 agree with Option C being the best option.

Manchester to Cleethorpes is my local service and the airport spur being axed and extended to Liverpool really isn’t much of loss and is more of a gain than anything mainly for Sheffield which will gain an extra Liverpool service and Doncaster will gain a direct link to Liverpool. It should make the service run smoother as both the fast services via the Hope Valley run to Liverpool and a simpler pattern is much better than the one at present.

I very much like Option C , it is the best in performance, best for connections, provides a good service to Manchester for the vast majority of destinations which in turn could encourage more people to use the services. It also seems the most logical as it removes a lot of the conflicts and a fair comprise has been made.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Here are all of the stops proposed for the Mid-Cheshire semi fast as it stands:

Manchester Piccadilly
Stockport
Altrincham
Hale
Knutsford
Northwich
Greenbank

They all currently make sense; TfGM want Hale better served, Knutsford has the Barclays bank whatever it is at Radbrook Hall & Greenbank has several schools in the area. It will add more time to the TfW services and remove their link with the Airport, but the latter can be solved by changing at Piccadilly. But on the flip side, they get slightly quicker access to the Metrolink and are closer to both Old Trafford stadiums.

 

[Eccles1983]

Here are all of the stops proposed for the Mid-Cheshire semi fast as it stands:

Manchester Piccadilly
Stockport
Altrincham
Hale
Knutsford
Northwich
Greenbank

They all currently make sense; TfGM want Hale better served, Knutsford has the Barclays bank whatever it is at Radbrook Hall & Greenbank has several schools in the area. It will add more time to the TfW services and remove their link with the Airport, but the latter can be solved by changing at Piccadilly. But on the flip side, they get slightly quicker access to the Metrolink and are closer to both Old Trafford stadiums.

And that's why it won't be accepted by the Welsh government.

North Wales loses its regular quick route into central Manchester, and tfgm gains.

Have fun explaining that at the Welsh government. The constraints at Chester also appear to be ignored. If these trains aren't running through to the coast then simply put the space isn't there.

A option to run services through to Leeds via Victoria would be sellable. But it would have to be branded tfw. No way are they going to hand over one of its major paying routes to northern. And the dft can't force it.

 

[Greybeard33]

Here are all of the stops proposed for the Mid-Cheshire semi fast as it stands:

Manchester Piccadilly
Stockport
Altrincham
Hale
Knutsford
Northwich
Greenbank

They all currently make sense; TfGM want Hale better served, Knutsford has the Barclays bank whatever it is at Radbrook Hall & Greenbank has several schools in the area. It will add more time to the TfW services and remove their link with the Airport, but the latter can be solved by changing at Piccadilly. But on the flip side, they get slightly quicker access to the Metrolink and are closer to both Old Trafford stadiums.

Source? The consultation document says that the TfW service would call at Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham and Stockport. No mention of Greenbank or Hale.

 

[peters]

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...

It's good to see someone looking at the complete picture, not just posting what does or doesn't benefit them. I hope the well reasoned arguments submitted in response to the consultation aren't eclipsed by responses saying things like I travel once a year to the airport so I want option B, when option B will have a negative impact on some people who work at the airport and who commute there 5 days a week.

Here are all of the stops proposed for the Mid-Cheshire semi fast as it stands:

Manchester Piccadilly
Stockport
Altrincham
Hale
Knutsford
Northwich
Greenbank

They all currently make sense; TfGM want Hale better served, Knutsford has the Barclays bank whatever it is at Radbrook Hall & Greenbank has several schools in the area. It will add more time to the TfW services and remove their link with the Airport, but the latter can be solved by changing at Piccadilly. But on the flip side, they get slightly quicker access to the Metrolink and are closer to both Old Trafford stadiums.

And that's why it won't be accepted by the Welsh government.

North Wales loses its regular quick route into central Manchester, and tfgm gains.

Have fun explaining that at the Welsh government. The constraints at Chester also appear to be ignored. If these trains aren't running through to the coast then simply put the space isn't there.

A option to run services through to Leeds via Victoria would be sellable. But it would have to be branded tfw. No way are they going to hand over one of its major paying routes to northern. And the dft can't force it.

The Hale and Greenbank stops won't be included in a North Wales to Manchester service. They also weren't a government set requirement for the semi-fast that Arriva didn't manage to get introduced, they were added in because Arriva thought it was a good idea and the positive impacts of the additional calls, outweighed the negative impacts. Given this proposal is for North Wales to Manchester via Northwich, there's no real chance of Hale and Greenbank being regular calling points as the negative impacts of additional calls are much greater this time.

One potential issue which needs to be considered is the morning peak towards Chester. Pre-Covid the times were:
06:08 Piccadilly to Chester
07:09 Piccadilly to Chester
07:41 Piccadilly to Chester
08:18 Stockport to Chester (equivalent to 08:08 from Piccadilly)
08:41 Piccadilly to Chester
09:41 Piccadilly to Chester

The first two services running 30 minutes behind the standard pattern and one extra train meant morning peak arrivals at Knutsford at 07:51, 08:24, 08:51, 09:24 so effectively a half-hourly service at the time people are travelling to school and work. If TfW Rail are running an hourly service then it might be Northern need to move to a consistent 60 minutes apart, which may mean a poorly timed morning arrival at Greenbank for the scholars, unless TfW Rail do a peak time call at Greenbank.

Pre-COVID what was the first direct train from Piccadilly to North Wales?

 

[sjm77]

I don't understand why, in option C, stations like Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have to loose their direct service to Manchester via Stockport! Is it not possible to extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe instead? Hopefully this is an unintended consequence that a proper consultation will fix.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't understand why, in option C, stations like Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have to loose their direct service to Manchester via Stockport! Is it not possible to extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe instead? Hopefully this is an unintended consequence that a proper consultation will fix.

1) To free up the path for the TfW inwards of Stockport, presumably.

2) Extending the Alderley Edge terminator would depend on capacity south of Crewe, platform capacity at Crewe itself and available rolling stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

The 802s receive maintenance at Edinburgh though, so it makes sense to have 1 service per hour extend from Newcastle.

Although you could argue that is satisfied by simply starting/ending first/last trains at Edinburgh (although train crew would also need consideration)

 

[peters]

I don't understand why, in option C, stations like Sandbach and Holmes Chapel have to loose their direct service to Manchester via Stockport! Is it not possible to extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe instead? Hopefully this is an unintended consequence that a proper consultation will fix.

I think the idea for option C is a consistent service. For instance, currently from Sandbach one service to Crewe departs 17 minutes after the other and if one train goes via Styal and the other goes via Stockport then you're not going to get a consistent service for most people. Looking at the current timetable catching the airport stopper from Sandbach to Wilmslow and then changing to the TfW Rail service for Piccadilly, is actually quicker than catching the direct stopping service from Sandbach to Piccadilly!

I actually misread B initially, I thought it involved removing the direct Wilmslow to airport link but it involves both Crewe services going via Styal with only one serving the airport.

 

[peters]

Also where does this leave the Bangor/Manchester airport that was promised?
The good people of north Wales...

Bradford and Blackburn were also promised direct airport services. The reality is whichever proposal goes ahead there's going to be a large number of people who can claim they were promised something and it hasn't been delivered.

While the people from North Wales you refer to shouldn't be discriminated against, it doesn't mean they automatically get what they were promised when the good people of Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Lancashire don't get what they were promised!

 

[sjm77]

1) To free up the path for the TfW inwards of Stockport, presumably.

2) Extending the Alderley Edge terminator would depend on capacity south of Crewe, platform capacity at Crewe itself and available rolling stock.

Thanks but I disagree;
-extending one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe makes no difference to the number of paths used inwards from Stockport so your first point is unfortunately wrong!
-I am suggesting that we bin one of the proposed Crewe via Airport stoppers (terminate it at Wilmslow instead) and extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe in it's place. I am not suggesting any increase in the number of services running between Alderley Edge and Crewe in Option C and no additional rolling stock would be needed.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

1) To free up the path for the TfW inwards of Stockport, presumably.

2) Extending the Alderley Edge terminator would depend on capacity south of Crewe, platform capacity at Crewe itself and available rolling stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==



Although you could argue that is satisfied by simply starting/ending first/last trains at Edinburgh (although train crew would also need consideration)

Actually the reason for Sandbach etc having to go via Airport is simple: the needs of many (West Midlands, East Midlands, that part of the world) to get to the Airport reliably and quickly with a half-hourly Crewe - Airport are clearly greater than the lesser commuting needs.

No doubt the timetable will have reasonably good connection times each way for local stations via Stockport at Alderney Edge; or at least an hourly fast connection at Wilmslow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

Thanks but I disagree;
-extending one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe makes no difference to the number of paths used inwards from Stockport so your first point is unfortunately wrong!
-I am suggesting that we bin one of the proposed Crewe via Airport stoppers (terminate it at Wilmslow instead) and extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe in it's place. I am not suggesting any increase in the number of services running between Alderley Edge and Crewe in Option C and no additional rolling stock would be needed.

It may be that Ianno’s point about the path north of Stockport is indeed wrong, but a point he maybe hasn’t made that would be right would be that to achieve a half-hourly Airport to Crewe will mean the same two slow paths an hour south of Wilmslow. Therefore, no, capacity likely doesn’t exist south of Wilmslow for an extension.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==

Thanks but I disagree;
-extending one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe makes no difference to the number of paths used inwards from Stockport so your first point is unfortunately wrong!
-I am suggesting that we bin one of the proposed Crewe via Airport stoppers (terminate it at Wilmslow instead) and extend one of the proposed Picc - Alderley Edge services to Crewe in it's place. I am not suggesting any increase in the number of services running between Alderley Edge and Crewe in Option C and no additional rolling stock would be needed.

It is also worth saying where you propose what you do that this timetable is very beneficial to many: if you live in Sandbach or Crewe and work at the Airport, this will be a very welcome move. By having a standard half-hourly service you are probably going to be able to encourage a half-hourly connection at Wilmslow onto a fast Manchester and vice versa. I personally think it’s a good change.

 

[daodao]

Actually the reason for Sandbach etc having to go via Airport is simple: the needs of many (West Midlands, East Midlands, that part of the world) to get to the Airport reliably and quickly with a half-hourly Crewe - Airport are clearly greater than the lesser commuting needs.

No doubt the timetable will have reasonably good connection times each way for local stations via Stockport at Alderney Edge; or at least an hourly fast connection at Wilmslow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==



It may be that Ianno’s point about the path north of Stockport is indeed wrong, but a point he maybe hasn’t made that would be right would be that to achieve a half-hourly Airport to Crewe will mean the same two slow paths an hour south of Wilmslow. Therefore, no, capacity likely doesn’t exist south of Wilmslow for an extension.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jan 2021 ==



It is also worth saying where you propose what you do that this timetable is very beneficial to many: if you live in Sandbach or Crewe and work at the Airport, this will be a very welcome move. By having a standard half-hourly service you are probably going to be able to encourage a half-hourly connection at Wilmslow onto a fast Manchester and vice versa. I personally think it’s a good change.

It reflects an obsession with direct trains from here there and everywhere to a provincial airport. IMO, the section of line between the Airport and Wilmslow merits no more than 1 tph as an extension of the stopping service to the Airport, as at present. I see no reason to change the current pattern of services via Wilmslow, apart from terminating all of them in the main train shed at Piccadilly. Running the principal stopping service from south of Alderley Edge via the Airport adds nearly 15 minutes to the journey time from there to Piccadilly.

 

[peters]

It reflects an obsession with direct trains from here there and everywhere to a provincial airport. IMO, the section of line between the Airport and Wilmslow merits no more than 1 tph as an extension of the stopping service to the Airport, as at present. I see no reason to change the current pattern of services via Wilmslow, apart from terminating all of them in the main train shed at Piccadilly.

Better for towns within a commutable distance of the airport to have a good service to the airport than towns a hundred plus miles away. Someone from Redcar isn't going to work at Manchester Airport and be commuting there regularly, someone from Sandbach might be and if they also have to get a bus between Sandbach station and their home then it a more regular train service may save them a significant amount of time each day.

 

[Philip]

Option C looks the best. But the Scotland/Cumbria stopping pattern looks a bit misleading. Initially in the report it implies that both the Scotland and Cumbria trains would make regular calls at Bolton and Chorley, but then further down the report it implies only the Cumbria service would do this.

 

[daodao]

Better for towns within a commutable distance of the airport to have a good service to the airport than towns a hundred plus miles away. Someone from Redcar isn't going to work at Manchester Airport and be commuting there regularly, someone from Sandbach might be and if they also have to get a bus between Sandbach station and their home then it a more regular train service may save them a significant amount of time each day.

I am merely proposing retention of the existing service pattern, which includes an hourly service from Sandbach to the Airport, plus a faster hourly service from Sandbach direct to Piccadilly via Stockport. Changing the pattern of the LNW line electric services south of Piccadilly isn't needed to solve the Castlefield line problems, other to stop extending these services via the Castlefield line.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Option C looks the best. But the Scotland/Cumbria stopping pattern looks a bit misleading. Initially in the report it implies that both the Scotland and Cumbria trains would make regular calls at Bolton and Chorley, but then further down the report it implies only the Cumbria service would do this.

Believe it means only the Cumbria service stops at Chorley; but that means only 3tph from Chorley peak and off-peak which concerns me slightly.

Meanwhile, we could have 5tph from the Wigan area via Atherton and Westhoughton and with longer units, freeing up a path to allow an extra peak service from the Preston area but that’s none of my business...

 

[Greybeard33]

I fear that the Option C diversion of the TfW service via Northwich increases performance risk between Piccadilly and Stockport. Network Rail previously refused a path for a second Northern Mid Cheshire line service (Piccadilly - Greenbank) on the grounds of unacceptable performance risk, taking account of the single track sections at Cheadle and Navigation Road. Yet a similar path is apparently considered ok for TfW?

I favour Option C overall, but maybe this aspect needs more work?

Edit: incorrect para deleted.

 

[Ianno87]

I fear that the Option C diversion of the TfW service via Northwich increases performance risk between Piccadilly and Stockport. Network Rail previously refused a path for a second Northern Mid Cheshire line service (Piccadilly - Greenbank) on the grounds of unacceptable performance risk, taking account of the single track sections at Cheadle and Navigation Road. Yet a similar path is apparently considered ok for TfW?

Yes, because other stuff has now been taken out, such as the Cleethorpes-Airport crossing move.

 

[Philip]

Believe it means only the Cumbria service stops at Chorley; but that means only 3tph from Chorley peak and off-peak which concerns me slightly.

Meanwhile, we could have 5tph from the Wigan area via Atherton and Westhoughton and with longer units, freeing up a path to allow an extra peak service from the Preston area but that’s none of my business...

Makes sense, the Cumbria should be Salford, Bolton and Chorley and the Scotland just Bolton.

Not sure what the point is in option A of sending peak Scotland services non-stop via Chat Moss to allow for an extra Blackpool-Airport. Surely it'd be simpler and more uniform to run all Scotland trains via Bolton and run the extra Blackpool via Chat Moss, calling additionally at Wigan (which the diverted Scotland isn't planned to do)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Option C looks the best. But the Scotland/Cumbria stopping pattern looks a bit misleading. Initially in the report it implies that both the Scotland and Cumbria trains would make regular calls at Bolton and Chorley, but then further down the report it implies only the Cumbria service would do this.

This creates a concern with Southport that they'd end up with a 29 minute connection to/from Castlefield. This really does need to be properly coordinated - i.e. Option C needs to have some Takt features other than just clockface simplicity.

I suppose what you'd most usefully have is the half hourly Southports calling at Bolton 15 minutes opposite the Blackpools, allowing connections both ways. Or have them run just behind in both directions, accepting that more people want Castlefield than want Vic.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Source? The consultation document says that the TfW service would call at Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham and Stockport. No mention of Greenbank or Hale.

They're the current ones, not the new ones.

 

[daodao]

I fear that the Option C diversion of the TfW service via Northwich increases performance risk between Piccadilly and Stockport. Network Rail previously refused a path for a second Northern Mid Cheshire line service (Piccadilly - Greenbank) on the grounds of unacceptable performance risk, taking account of the single track sections at Cheadle and Navigation Road. Yet a similar path is apparently considered ok for TfW?

Option C also retains the peak extras between Chester and Stockport, resulting in 3tph (+ freight) on the Mid Cheshire in the peaks - even more ambitious.

I favour Option C overall, but maybe this aspect needs more work?

I share this concern.

I welcome the MRTF proposals as a step forward, and of the 3 options proposed in this consultation, also prefer option C, as it seems simpler and more resilient overall. However, I have concerns (see post 448 at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-castlefield-again.204599/page-15) about some of the changes proposed to services on the south side of Manchester, in particular diverting the North Wales service via Altrincham, as well as continuing to use the Castlefield line for long-distance services, because of lack of resilience.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Is there anything that can be done by 2022 to improve Vic to Picc links so that most of the grumbling about 'my train goes to the wrong Manchester station' would be solved? I'm thinking trams, buses and not needing an extra ticket and so on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there anything that can be done by 2022 to improve Vic to Picc links so that most of the grumbling about 'my train goes to the wrong Manchester station' would be solved? I'm thinking trams, buses and not needing an extra ticket and so on.

I would certainly like to see the Tube approach used for Metrolink, i.e. any ticket via Manchester that even vaguely might benefit from Metrolink validity has a + equivalent in the route to allow it to be used for nowt.

But that aside, I think timing for quality connections at Salford Crescent would help massively. My concern about option C is that we'll end up with Southports having a 29 minute connection into the ex-Blackpools, and then the loss of the direct Castlefield service becomes a massive issue.

 

[Ianno87]

Is there anything that can be done by 2022 to improve Vic to Picc links so that most of the grumbling about 'my train goes to the wrong Manchester station' would be solved? I'm thinking trams, buses and not needing an extra ticket and so on.

That needs sorting:
-Better advertising of the "Manchester Central Zone" for existing GM tickets. I'm sure loads of people don't realise that exists already
-Extend Manchester Central Zone to stations outside of Greater Manchester
-Enable free Metrolink transfer for cross-Manchester journeys outside of GM
-Proper Zonal Day / Week tickets valid peak/off peak on Trains and Trams (improving the current "half" range that exists)

 

[Bletchleyite]

-Proper Zonal Day / Week tickets valid peak/off peak on Trains and Trams (improving the current "half" range that exists)

Yes, this - Manchester needs a fully integrated zonal PTE season scheme, not one which for about 30 years has inexplicably excluded one of the modes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pre-COVID what was the first direct train from Piccadilly to North Wales?

0533 Airport-Llandudno (0548 from Pic).

Very likely that in a concession world the DfT will be able to decide routes and stopping patterns across operators, but not for "foreign" trains run by WG/TfW!

 

[JonathanH]

I would certainly like to see the Tube approach used for Metrolink, i.e. any ticket via Manchester that even vaguely might benefit from Metrolink validity has a + equivalent in the route to allow it to be used for nowt.

Who do you suggest pays for that? Either the Railway takes less money or Metrolink has to carry passengers for free. Didn't you, in another thread, advocate removing just this facility from NR tickets in London because you prefer to walk or catch the bus?

Because LU can't deal with e-tickets and there is no reason someone who is using Thameslink should be inconvenienced by being unable to use an e-ticket if they wish to do so.

TBH, thinking more, it might be even easier to allow it for all flows but to require retailers to state, alongside the e-ticket option, "E-tickets cannot be used for cross-London transfers via London Underground", and that paper tickets via ToD must be offered in such cases.

There are cross-London journeys for which I never use LU, preferring to walk or go by bus (for example Euston-Waterloo I always do by bus), and I don't see why I should be inconvenienced by having to go to a TVM to pick up a paper ticket or by having to split (unless it's cheaper).