Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Starmill]

What's wrong with the 2 long EMUs per hour at Chorley?

Principally that there are currently (or would be) 3 (6+6+4). Cutting Chorley - Preston, Chorley - Bolton and Chorley - Manchester from 3 to 2tph would also be a notable loss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Principally that there are currently (or would be) 3 (6+6+4). Cutting Chorley - Preston, Chorley - Bolton and Chorley - Manchester from 3 to 2tph would also be a notable loss.

I'm not convinced that Chorley needs more than 2tph, it's hardly huge. They're going to be clockface every 30, right?

That said, don't all the options stop using Parkside anyway?

 

[Starmill]

I'm not convinced that Chorley needs more than 2tph, it's hardly huge. They're going to be clockface every 30, right?

That said, don't all the options stop using Parkside anyway?

Presumably, if running both long-distance trains non-stop from Manchester to Preston, and the North Wales one non-stop from Stockport to Chester provided sufficient commuter capacity, then those would have been proposed in the consultation document - and yet they have chosen rather something different.

The thing I do not know is if TfW could operate 2+2+2 on peak services to Manchester via Altrincham. I would guess no.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2021 ==

I would also add that in the most recent data, Chorley had more traffic recorded than Tile Hill, Hatch End, Menston, Aspley and a similar number to Wellington, Bromborough and Runcorn.

 

[peters]

Presumably, if running both long-distance trains non-stop from Manchester to Preston, and the North Wales one non-stop from Stockport to Chester provided sufficient commuter capacity, then those would have been proposed in the consultation document - and yet they have chosen rather something different.

The thing I do not know is if TfW could operate 2+2+2 on peak services to Manchester via Altrincham. I would guess no.

Knutsford and Northwich can take 6 cars but it would involve reinstating the fenced off section of the platforms and I'm not sure on the maximum carriage length for 6. The platforms at Knutsford can't be extended due to the A50 bridge at one end of the platform and the bridge over King Street at the other end.

Altrincham's platforms can take 8 x 20m, the trams look tiny compared to the length of the platforms!

Greenbank and Hale can only take 4 cars maximum but there's no guarantee the diverted services will make any calls there, even peak time only ones.

Maybe that would make it easier to use 6 cars on North Wales to Manchester than a train which calls at Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East and Earlestown?

 

[Greybeard33]

Presumably, if running both long-distance trains non-stop from Manchester to Preston, and the North Wales one non-stop from Stockport to Chester provided sufficient commuter capacity, then those would have been proposed in the consultation document - and yet they have chosen rather something different.

The thing I do not know is if TfW could operate 2+2+2 on peak services to Manchester via Altrincham. I would guess no.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2021 ==

I would also add that in the most recent data, Chorley had more traffic recorded than Tile Hill, Hatch End, Menston, Aspley and a similar number to Wellington, Bromborough and Runcorn.

Northwich and Knutsford platforms can take 6x20m or 5x24m carriages. Altrincham can take 6x24m. I don't know what stock TfW is planning to use on the N Wales service once its new trains are all in service.

Most predictions of post-Covid recovery suggest that overcrowding is unlikely to be an issue before 2025.

 

[Purple Orange]

I can't imagine that except for people who work near Vic that anyone really favours it. It's a nasty dump of a station in an inconvenient, unsafe-feeling area. Of course, the latter could be solved in part, and "outboundary Travelcards" more widely than just GM could make the tram more attractive.

The location of Victoria is good. It’s just the 4 through platforms that look grim, but no more grim than London Victoria or Birmingham New Street. Under the new roof, I feel like it is completely fine. It’s just diesel and the arena that is the problem, and I’d say Diesel will be the quickest to disappear.

 

[Ianno87]

The location of Victoria is good. It’s just the 4 through platforms that look grim, but no more grim than London Victoria or Birmingham New Street. Under the new roof, I feel like it is completely fine. It’s just diesel and the arena that is the problem, and I’d say Diesel will be the quickest to disappear.

The passenger circulation on the Manchester Victoria footbridge is also poor for its present day usage. A relief footbridge down in the "open air" at the east end might be prudent. Perhaps some canopies and make more use of that, less dank, end of the through platforms.

 

[Bevan Price]

I'm not convinced that Chorley needs more than 2tph, it's hardly huge. They're going to be clockface every 30, right?

That said, don't all the options stop using Parkside anyway?

Not huge, but a Chorley population of about 35,000 is not insignificant either.

 

[Ianno87]

Not huge, but a Chorley population of about 35,000 is not insignificant either.

And probably has a bit of 'railheading' from the outskirts of Blackburn, plus places like Euxton.

 

[Llandudno]

Not huge, but a Chorley population of about 35,000 is not insignificant either.

Chorley Borough has a population of over 100,000, plus boasts around 5 micropubs including the superb Bob Inn in the market hall!

 

[Starmill]

A relief footbridge down in the "open air" at the east end might be prudent.

There's already one there for passenger use, though it looks terrible.

 

[Ianno87]

There's already one there for passenger use, though it looks terrible.

Certainly a more "enticing" one is needed (at least with a canopy! The one there is basically a glorified fire escape) and rearrangement of the passenger circulation on the concourse to make use of it.

 

[Llandudno]

There's already one there for passenger use, though it looks terrible.

In other words totally in keeping with the dark and dingy platforms!

 

[Starmill]

Where Bletchleyite probably is right is that in the medium / longer term (i.e. this deacade but not 2022) Manchester to Preston via Bolton will almost certainly need to go to full 200 metre platforms in order to permit 8 car working, particularly if the results of the current timetable consultation reduce Bolton to Preston down from 4 to 3tph. There will be no other means to add capacity other than undoing the changes we are about to make in the name of reliability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where Bletchleyite probably is right is that in the medium / longer term (i.e. this deacade but not 2022) Manchester to Preston via Bolton will almost certainly need to go to full 200 metre platforms in order to permit 8 car working, particularly if the results of the current timetable consultation reduce Bolton to Preston down from 4 to 3tph. There will be no other means to add capacity other than undoing the changes we are about to make in the name of reliability.

If there's continuing growth on the Scottish services it might need consideration of 10-car operation (perhaps to both Glasgow *and* Edinburgh each hour) then using that for additional Bolton/Chorley capacity may not be too disastrous, but that'd require even longer platforms.

 

[Ianno87]

If there's continuing growth on the Scottish services it might need consideration of 10-car operation (perhaps to both Glasgow *and* Edinburgh each hour) then using that for additional Bolton/Chorley capacity may not be too disastrous, but that'd require even longer platforms.

Bolton is plenty long enough (all of 3, 4 and 5), whilst Chorley could be an SDO job if needs be (about 3.5 carriages would hang off).

 

[Greybeard33]

Where Bletchleyite probably is right is that in the medium / longer term (i.e. this deacade but not 2022) Manchester to Preston via Bolton will almost certainly need to go to full 200 metre platforms in order to permit 8 car working, particularly if the results of the current timetable consultation reduce Bolton to Preston down from 4 to 3tph. There will be no other means to add capacity other than undoing the changes we are about to make in the name of reliability.

The 2022 timetable recast is supposed to be temporary, pending infrastructure enhancements to increase capacity into/through central Manchester. From the consultation document:

This timetable work is therefore the starting point from which we can build resilience and reliability. The rail industry is also developing a long-term vision for the network, infrastructure and train services in the region, including ways in which additional services can be introduced reliably in the future. The vision is exploring which infrastructure schemes around Manchester will best help unlock capacity, improved connectivity and support economic growth in the longer term.

We will have to wait and see what the scope and timescale of the proposed infrastructure enhancements will be. Hopefully they might enable a frequency uplift on the Chorley line before overcrowding becomes critical.

 

[BrianW]

The 2022 timetable recast is supposed to be temporary, pending infrastructure enhancements to increase capacity into/through central Manchester. From the consultation document:

We will have to wait and see what the scope and timescale of the proposed infrastructure enhancements will be. Hopefully they might enable a frequency uplift on the Chorley line before overcrowding becomes critical.

I would imagine that while seeking a 'solution' to, or amelioration of the current Castlefield 'situation' those charged with coming up with and deciding on proposals will 'have an eye' to the longer term too. I would take this to mean not only for the Castlefield Corridor but also in terms of 'lessons learned' and what those might potentially mean in terms of the scope and scale of proposals for 'improvements' elsewhere, their development, evaluatiuon and implementation. I too wait and see.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 2022 timetable recast is supposed to be temporary

All timetables are temporary. Some are more temporary than others.

 

[andyj158]

https://www.wigantoday.net/news/politics/wigan-mp-gobsmacked-plans-axe-direct-train-service-manchester-piccadilly-3126263

Wigan MP 'gobsmacked' by plans to axe direct train service to Manchester Piccadilly​

MP Lisa Nandy has written to the Transport Secretary to object to proposals to axe the direct train service between Wigan and Manchester Piccadilly.​

In a letter to Grant Schapps, Wigan's Labour representative said she was "gobsmacked" to be told of the plans for the route, which she described as "absolutely central to our community".

She said it was the second time that she has had to fight to keep the rail link, following proposals to axe it in 2015.

Ms Nandy wrote: "I should not have to remind you that just over a year ago the Prime Minister was elected on a commitment to level up constituencies in the north of England.

"Now, we face losing the direct link to Manchester Piccadilly and the direct link to Manchester Airport. Unlike many areas of Greater Manchester, we have unreliable, infrequent bus services, no connection at all to the Metrolink and we have consistently been passed over for investment. Now we are threatened, yet again, with the loss of a vital direct rail link."

She stated there were also proposals to divert an hourly fast train from Cumbria to Manchester Airport, which currently goes via Wigan, to Bolton instead.
Ms Nandy wrote: "You may or may not be aware that the case for a station at Golborne, which campaigners in the neighbouring constituency of Leigh have long fought for, rests on this service. Can you confirm that you are proposing not only to break your promises to the people of Wigan, but to the people of Leigh as well?"

Ms Nandy urged Mr Shapps to drop what she called a "sham consultation" and said it was "insulting" that the proposals had been announced during the coronavirus pandemic.

I wonder if this will have much of an effect on the final outcome of the consultation.

The Cumbria services were well used between Wigan and Manchester pre-covid, and given that Golborne is less than 10-minutes by road from Newton-le-Willows, I can't see there being much demand for a Golborne station with a service to anywhere other than Manchester.

 

[NorthWestRover]

And a broader take from across Greater Manchester in the MEN...

Government's big plans to overhaul rail in the North would see our train services REDUCED - it's been blasted as 'deeply regressive'

Major plans to overhaul the rail network in the North which could see train services reduced in parts of Greater Manchester are ‘deeply regressive’, leaders say.

The government is consulting on changes to pre-Covid timetables aimed at easing congestion in and around Manchester, spacing services more evenly, and reducing delays from May 2022.

A task force has been working towards improving services on the network since the disastrous introduction of new timetables in May 2018 caused widespread disruption, and
Three proposals tabled by the Department for Transport (DfT) will affect different train lines and which routes run directly to Oxford Road, Piccadilly, and Manchester Airport.

Each of the three options would see services through the Castlefield Corridor bottleneck capped at 12 trains per hour each way - as opposed to 15 per hour on pre-Covid timetables.
Sheffield’s direct link to Manchester Airport, a route which has proved ‘operationally challenging’ at Piccadilly, would be axed under two of the proposals.

Another option would deliver more frequent services to some outlying stations in Greater Manchester and further afield.



But the consultation, which is also seeking views of rail passengers, has been met with caution by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).
Mayor Andy Burnham told a meeting of leaders on Friday that the proposals would bring stability to some parts of the city-region, whilst impacting on other boroughs.

“Promises made to us and the wider north of England over many years have not been fulfilled, we have an infrastructure that can’t cope,” he said.
“It’s frustrating to even have to consider a timetable that reduces services, but at the same time we need to bring some reliability back to rail services in the north of England.
“We should have a working principle of not letting one or two boroughs shoulder the full burden, we need to spread the pain.”

The three options on offer to Manchester's rail commuters​

The Manchester Recovery Taskforce was launched by the Transport Secretary and tasked with recommending three different packages of changes to the rail timetable into and out of Manchester.
Option A
Most existing origins and destinations are retained, particularly for Newcastle to Piccadilly and Sheffield to Airport journeys.
Option B
Option B is a variant that maintains Airport connectivity for Liverpool and North Wales. The Cleethorpes/Nottingham service via Sheffield to Liverpool is increased to a standard two trains per hour. This means there is no longer a through service from Sheffield to Manchester Airport; a movement which is very operationally challenging at Manchester Piccadilly. Passengers from Warrington Central would also need to change at Piccadilly to access the Airport.
Option C
Option C makes the most changes and moves closest to 30-minute frequencies on most of the corridors into Manchester, including services on the Blackburn, Calder Valley, Chorley, Wigan, Buxton, Chester via Warrington Bank Quay, Airport (stopping) and Crewe lines. A number of stations gain an improvement in frequency, helping contribute to overall benefits.
Transport for Greater Manchester is one of several rail industry stakeholders tasked with the timetable proposals as part of the Manchester Recovery Task Force.
Mr Burnham said the public body would be proposing a fourth option as part of its response to the consultation, which runs until March 10.

 

[peters]

And a broader take from across Greater Manchester in the MEN...

Government's big plans to overhaul rail in the North would see our train services REDUCED - it's been blasted as 'deeply regressive'

So the obvious question is what is option D. Option C seems to offer the most improvements so if I'd have to guess then I would guess it's a revised form of option C so that some of the disadvantages of option C are removed but would that then just add other disadvantages instead?

 

[nr758123]

And a broader take from across Greater Manchester in the MEN...

Government's big plans to overhaul rail in the North would see our train services REDUCED - it's been blasted as 'deeply regressive'

It's often the case that losers make the biggest noise and gainers make very little noise at all. It's also no surprise that the MEN chooses to amplify complaints about aspects of this proposal.

Like Cllr Fielding from Oldham, I welcome that options B & C will give Greenfield and other stations on the Huddersfield line a half-hourly service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2021 ==

So the obvious question is what is option D. Option C seems to offer the most improvements so if I'd have to guess then I would guess it's a revised form of option C so that some of the disadvantages of option C are removed but would that then just add other disadvantages instead?

The Option D that everyone wants is similar to option C but varied so that their own route (whichever one it is) exempted from anything which might be seen as a service reduction.

 

[yorkie]

So the obvious question is what is option D. Option C seems to offer the most improvements so if I'd have to guess then I would guess it's a revised form of option C so that some of the disadvantages of option C are removed but would that then just add other disadvantages instead?

Option D is potentially anything anyone wishes to discuss in the speculative thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-castlefield-again.204599/

 

[Starmill]

It's often the case that losers make the biggest noise and gainers make very little noise at all. It's also no surprise that the MEN chooses to amplify complaints about aspects of this proposal.

Removing service has an immediate, negative impact on demand and cuts sales. Improvements in performance and reliability, bearing in mind that these cuts won't improve performance to 100%, is a long-term endeavour.

Reputation is also quick to be lost, and has been lost significantly as a product of both strikes and the 2018 timetable, and slow to be gained. It's also worth noting that the proposed losses in Option C, well documented above, aren't trivial, especially when compared against the TSR2 from the franchise agreement.

Of course, as you suggest there in fact are some genuine benefits to Option C such as Farnworth, Greenfield and Chassen Road (among many others) going from 1 to 2 tph in the interpeak. But that's a pretty thin benefit in terms of revenues and sales.

I've pointed this out before that this is an inevitable disadvantage of having Network Rail leading. They are strongly interested in the effective movement of trains, but that's not what keeps the railway going. It's the movement of actual people and goods that matters.

 

[tbtc]

Our local LibDems are revolting... https://www.facebook.com/CllrShaffaqMohammed/

Sheffield could lose its rail link to Manchester airport – your views are needed.
The direct rail link from Sheffield to Manchester airport could be scrapped in two out of the three proposals being considered by transport bosses.
As someone who has used this link a lot, I know how important it is to Sheffield’s businesses, universities and in normal times, holidaymakers. Please do take part in the consultation

Unsurprising that they are wanting to be seen in opposition to the plans (and I say this as someone who'd love it, love it, if Option C was selected), it's easy to moan about any change, you can paint it to suggest that we are going to lose half of our Manchester services (just like that horribly disingenuous quotation from the Southport people was happy to give the impression that the incredibly important town full of Manchester University staff would see a 50% reduction in services to Manchester, rather than just having the same frequency but with everything serving the same central station).

To use completely made up numbers, there might be one hundred people in Sheffield who use the train to Manchester Airport each year and only ten people who use the train to commute to Manchester on a daily/regular basis - so a shameless politician (like Mohammed, with local elections around the corner) will appeal to the hundred (who'll see the direct service replaced by a change on the same island platform) rather than the ten (who'll have a more reliable service, and all trains using the same platform rather than some in the shed and some at 13/14).

However, for the railway, those ten people make significantly more journeys each year than a hundred people taking their annual holidays, and contribute a lot more in revenue (esp with Airport passengers booking on Advance tickets), so we need to balance the upset of a large(r) number of occasional passengers against the small(er) number of everyday passengers

 

[Starmill]

Our local LibDems are revolting... https://www.facebook.com/CllrShaffaqMohammed/


Unsurprising that they are wanting to be seen in opposition to the plans (and I say this as someone who'd love it, love it, if Option C was selected), it's easy to moan about any change, you can paint it to suggest that we are going to lose half of our Manchester services (just like that horribly disingenuous quotation from the Southport people was happy to give the impression that the incredibly important town full of Manchester University staff would see a 50% reduction in services to Manchester, rather than just having the same frequency but with everything serving the same central station).

To use completely made up numbers, there might be one hundred people in Sheffield who use the train to Manchester Airport each year and only ten people who use the train to commute to Manchester on a daily/regular basis - so a shameless politician (like Mohammed, with local elections around the corner) will appeal to the hundred (who'll see the direct service replaced by a change on the same island platform) rather than the ten (who'll have a more reliable service, and all trains using the same platform rather than some in the shed and some at 13/14).

However, for the railway, those ten people make significantly more journeys each year than a hundred people taking their annual holidays, and contribute a lot more in revenue (esp with Airport passengers booking on Advance tickets), so we need to balance the upset of a large(r) number of occasional passengers against the small(er) number of everyday passengers

It's a bit weird the way it is worded. There are already next to no services to Manchester Airport. Did someone really promise that they were going to come back?

 

[Watershed]

It's a bit weird the way it is worded. There are already next to no services to Manchester Airport. Did someone really promise that they were going to come back?

Most people are using the train so little - particularly to travel to the Airport - that this change has gone relatively unnoticed. I think who have noted the change probably assumed that it was only intended as a temporary Covid-related measure.

 

[andyj158]

Like Cllr Fielding from Oldham, I welcome that options B & C will give Greenfield and other stations on the Huddersfield line a half-hourly service.

I personally think the passenger figures at Greenfield and Mossley don't justify half-hourly services outside of peak times if providing them causes a detriment to other areas. When I lived in Mossley, outside of peak times there'd be maybe an handful of users.

For example, Greenfield is 12 miles from Manchester, with a frequent direct bus route to Manchester and the metrolink close by. On the other hand Wigan and Golborne are 24 and 19 miles from Manchester respectively. Neither have a bus route to Manchester and the closest metrolink is about 12 miles away.

 

[Ianno87]

Most people are using the train so little - particularly to travel to the Airport - that this change has gone relatively unnoticed. I think who have noted the change probably assumed that it was only intended as a temporary Covid-related measure.

I also find it hard to believe that people are going to recoil in horror that service patterns have changed when they return to rail.