Northern and TPE Consultation Document

[edwin_m]

I just want to know if TPE will have enough units to potentially enable Newcastle to Liverpool and Hull to Manchester to go half hourly whilst retaining Middlesborough and Scarborough services especially if they take on the EMT Liverpool to Nottingham portions as speculated. I've ran out of fingers and toes but I reckon it ll be a stretch, the 9 class 170s going down south won't help

Most of this won't happen until after electrification, if at all, so most of the trains via Diggle will be EMUs.

 

[northwichcat]

Its been in the pipe line for quite a while that there will be 2 TPE semi fasts who stop at 2 out of the 4 (?) intermediate stops between Stalybridge and Huddersfield replacing the Northern stopper which gets in the way sometimes. Theres still 4 express services so its not a big deal really

I just want to know if TPE will have enough units to potentially enable Newcastle to Liverpool and Hull to Manchester to go half hourly whilst retaining Middlesborough and Scarborough services especially if they take on the EMT Liverpool to Nottingham portions as speculated. I've ran out of fingers and toes but I reckon it ll be a stretch, the 9 class 170s going down south won't help

For a long time the plan has been TPE would stop using 185s on Manchester Airport to Blackpool at the same time as they start operating services on the Ordsall Chord. (Proposed for December 16.) That would release 5 x 185s which will allow Manchester-Selby to a half-hourly semi-fast (with alternate services continuing to Hull.) If you look at what swt_passenger posted earlier on the proposed services for North TPE at that stage are:
 Liverpool Lime Street – Newcastle via Manchester Victoria
 Liverpool Lime Street – York via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Airport – Middlesbrough via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Airport – Scarborough via Manchester Victoria
 Manchester Piccadilly – Hull
 Manchester Piccadilly – Selby

So the 5 x 185s released off Manchester Airport-Blackpool, together with the units already used on North TPE can cover that. An extension of Liverpool-York via Victoria to Newcastle would come later on when TPE start switching services to EMU. My understanding is Hull will only get 2tph to Manchester via Leeds if Selby-Hull electrification gets approved, otherwise it'll remain as 1tph with the extra service only going to Selby.

The one unexpected thing in there is that it looks like they'll be 2 North TPE services via Chat Moss from December 2016, with a Liverpool-Warrington-Stockport service, which may be extended to Sheffield. It's not so obvious how that'll work, presumably the units released off the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will be expected to take the place of some of the 185s to Windermere/Barrow (which DfT want to move to Northern) to leave some 185s to run Liverpool-Stockport.

Of course, the 170/3s do need replacing until at least the December 2018 timetable change for this to all work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there any need for a 6th service per hour? The frequency on North Transpennine is perfectly fine. What the service needs is more carriages to stop the over crowding that seems to occur all day every day.

I don't like the idea of TPE services calling at the likes of Marsden, surely the whole point of an express service is that it doesn't stop at small stations like that.

Replacing the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper with a 6th North TPE service and having TPE call at the likes of Marsden is an interim solution. The problem is a large number of passengers from Huddersfield and Leeds travelling to Manchester, catch onwards connections which aren't available from Victoria and many connecting services from Piccadilly only being hourly in frequency. So a solution was sought which kept 4tph between Piccadilly and Leeds and because you can't have 7tph between Manchester and Huddersfield until there's infrastructure changes (e.g. electrification) an interim solution was proposed.

A decision hasn't yet been made on what will happen in December 18 with stations like Marsden (when there should be a path available for a stopper alongside 6 North TPE services) and it'll partly depend whether it's considered they can justify 2tph off-peak.

 

[Philip]

The one unexpected thing in there is that it looks like they'll be 2 North TPE services via Chat Moss from December 2016, with a Liverpool-Warrington-Stockport service, which may be extended to Sheffield. It's not so obvious how that'll work, presumably the units released off the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will be expected to take the place of some of the 185s to Windermere/Barrow (which DfT want to move to Northern) to leave some 185s to run Liverpool-Stockport.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I've said before it's more likely and more appropriate that 185s continue running to Barrow or Windermere either under TPE or Northern. A class 158 would be suitable for Liverpool to Stockport, it seems likely TPE will be getting some in the short term. The linespeed north of Preston is one of a number of reasons why 185s should be kepton Barrow and Windermere routes until electrification. Northern (whoever it is then) can hire 185s from TPE like TPE did with the 175s. It wasn't long ago when an early morning Northern service from Cleethorpes was run with a 185 hired from TPE, it can be done.

 

[Des Iroman]

The linespeed north of Preston issue you highlight (which wouldn't be a huge issue with 90mph 158s replacing 100mph 185s for a single, level 15-mile section anyway) would be irrelevant if the number of through services is slashed as has been rumoured, with most services being 'shuttles' to Lancaster (from Barrow) and Oxenholme (from Windermere)!!

 

[Class 170101]

It is interesting to note that Middlesbrough and Scarborough have TPE Services to Manchester Airport According to the Track Access Application I thought these were subject to splitting at York with some of the services transferring to Northern Rail instead as no wiring was to be carried out on those branches. Nothing mentioned about Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services either from what I could see.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The linespeed north of Preston issue you highlight ( be a huge issue with 90mph 158s replacing 100mph 185s for a single, level 15-mile section anyway) would be irrelevant if the number of through services is slashed as has been rumoured, with most services being 'shuttles' to Lancaster (from Barrow) and Oxenholme (from Windermere)!!

A lower top speed will eat into capacity between Preston and Carnforth. 158s I believe are also slower off the blocks than 185s

 

[Philip]

The linespeed north of Preston issue you highlight (which wouldn't be a huge issue with 90mph 158s replacing 100mph 185s for a single, level 15-mile section anyway) would be irrelevant if the number of through services is slashed as has been rumoured, with most services being 'shuttles' to Lancaster (from Barrow) and Oxenholme (from Windermere)!!

If Northern ran a service with their own stock it'd likely be a Pacer or a Sprinter because 158s stick to Yorkshire routes on Northern. Even an irregular service would cause problems as there is already a lower speed unit running on that section in the form of the Liverpool to Barrow service.

 

[158756]

If Northern ran a service with their own stock it'd likely be a Pacer or a Sprinter because 158s stick to Yorkshire routes on Northern. Even an irregular service would cause problems as there is already a lower speed unit running on that section in the form of the Liverpool to Barrow service

?? Northern run 4 trains per day between Preston and Lancaster, which are four minutes slower than a 185. If those four services can run surely just a few more, as it seems is all Barrow may have in a few years, could also?

 

[Andyh82]

TPE stopping at local stations between Huddersfield and Manchester will surely cause issues as won't most of those stations have short platforms, meaning if double units are used, there will need to be confusing instructions about which doors will open at which stations.

I'd question fitting in all these extra trains, even with electrification, as since the 5th service per hour started, reliability has gone down, as the infrastructure is being stretched to the limit.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is interesting to note that Middlesbrough and Scarborough have TPE Services to Manchester Airport According to the Track Access Application I thought these were subject to splitting at York with some of the services transferring to Northern Rail instead as no wiring was to be carried out on those branches. Nothing mentioned about Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services either from what I could see.

It appears to be just a holding access application before the franchise decisions are made next year. It only covers North TPE too.
I don't think you can read anything into future services until the ITT comes out in December (with the consultation responses).

 

[Philip]

?? Northern run 4 trains per day between Preston and Lancaster, which are four minutes slower than a 185. If those four services can run surely just a few more, as it seems is all Barrow may have in a few years, could also?

It won't take much to potentially have a knock-on effect on other services. Maybe there is a sufficient gap for a few more slower trains but I have my doubts and even if there is a gap then timetable operations will be tighter with less give for delays. The top speed issue was the main reason for replacing Sprinters with 175s on these routes in 2001.

The idea of splitting the Huddersfield stopping service between two semi-fast TPE services is ridiculous. With this proposal Marsden passengers potentially may have to change at Huddersfield for 'Slawit', or Greenfield passengers at Stalybridge for Marsden, Slawit and so on. Completely absurd idea, all to do with trying to squeeze yet another TPE into the timetable. Don't forget you're also pretty much destroying the well used and loved Ale Trail. The stopper should remain with Northern, hourly and serve all stops just like most other stopping services do. Between Manchester and Leeds, the 4 TPEs as was up until May was more than enough of a service pattern, the issue has never been frequency, it is that the trains are too short.

 

[northwichcat]

Regarding rolling stock usage:

Network Rail's platform lengthening plans include allowing 6 car 185s (or equivalent) to stop at the main stations between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington and 4 car 170s (or equivalent) to stop at all stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

 

[Masbroughlad]

What happens to all of these thousands of responses? Who uses them? Do they help form strategy really? Would like to think they do but I am a bit cynical that the DfT will do what they want anyway?!

 

[northwichcat]

The idea of splitting the Huddersfield stopping service between two semi-fast TPE services is ridiculous. With this proposal Marsden passengers potentially may have to change at Huddersfield for 'Slawit', or Greenfield passengers at Stalybridge for Marsden, Slawit and so on.

Extensive consultation was done on that with different options being put forward.

The results Network Rail published to it indicated:
1. The majority of people in Marsden and Slaithwaite would prefer a direct service to Leeds over a direct service to Slaithwaite/Marsden.
2. The majority of people using stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield either weren't bothered which station their train goes to in Manchester (Piccadilly or Victoria) or preferred Piccadilly over Victoria.

I understand the calling pattern will be Greenfield and Marsden stops on one service followed by Mossley and Slaithwaite on the next. The idea of alternating station calls between services went down very badly in the consultation. All the semi-fasts will also call at Guide Bridge.

Don't forget you're also pretty much destroying the well used and loved Ale Trail.

Unfortunately, I think the problems caused by the ale trail outweigh the additional usage, with many fares going uncollected.

the 4 TPEs as was up until May was more than enough of a service pattern, the issue has never been frequency, it is that the trains are too short.

The 6 TPEs are a compromise. Re-routing services to Victoria gives faster journey times between Liverpool and Manchester and between Manchester and Leeds. However, many people using TPE to/from Manchester don't end their journey in central Manchester and need connections to the likes of Warrington, Chester and many other places which are unavailable from Victoria so a 50% service cut in TPE services from Piccadilly was seen as potentially damaging to North TPE usage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd question fitting in all these extra trains, even with electrification, as since the 5th service per hour started, reliability has gone down, as the infrastructure is being stretched to the limit.

What do you mean by 'all these extra trains'?

Currently there's 6 per hour between Manchester and Huddersfield and the proposal is for 6 per hour between Manchester and Huddersfield from December 2016 but with 2 semi-fasts and no all stops service and also less services going via Ardwick. Surely, that'll improve punctuality rather than make it worse?

 

[WatcherZero]

What happens to all of these thousands of responses? Who uses them? Do they help form strategy really? Would like to think they do but I am a bit cynical that the DfT will do what they want anyway?!

Generally unless theres a real media storm and universal opposition no its rare for a consultation to cause a total change in direction its a process that has to be gone through even if the decision has already been made. They do always shape the edges though and minor suggestions for improvements are usually worked in, timescales altered, extra mitigation put in.

In the case of this particular consultation the main things that would be influenced are service patterns and priorities for investment. The bidders for the franchise are going to be handed all the consultation responses for review and so they should design service around what people are saying they want to maximise customer satisfaction and generate maximum revenue.

 

[northwichcat]

It appears to be just a holding access application before the franchise decisions are made next year. It only covers North TPE too.
I don't think you can read anything into future services until the ITT comes out in December (with the consultation responses).

While I agree changes may happen I think there's limited options for changes to North TPE. The bidder may be allowed to say Manchester Airport-Newcastle instead of Liverpool-Newcastle but how many services operate between Manchester and Leeds is pretty much set in stone now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Generally unless theres a real media storm and universal opposition no its rare for a consultation to cause a total change in direction its a process that has to be gone through even if the decision has already been made. They do always shape the edges though and minor suggestions for improvements are usually worked in, timescales altered, extra mitigation put in.

In the case of this particular consultation the main things that would be influenced are service patterns and priorities for investment. The bidders for the franchise are going to be handed all the consultation responses for review and so they should design service around what people are saying they want to maximise customer satisfaction and generate maximum revenue.

The two things I think DfT may consider changing are the proposed change to Liverpool to Norwich and the proposed change to South TPE. However, that doesn't mean Liverpool to Norwich will remain if they decide to do something different, they might decide to give Leeds-Nottingham to EMT to tag on to Nottingham-Norwich, for instance as they do seem to be looking for places to operate 185s post-North TPE electrification and a TPE operated Liverpool-Nottingham service with 6 car 185s would work.

 

[Andyh82]

Regarding rolling stock usage:

Network Rail's platform lengthening plans include allowing 6 car 185s (or equivalent) to stop at the main stations between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington and 4 car 170s (or equivalent) to stop at all stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

4 car 170s on the TPE semi fasts will be rammed, as you'll have a train load of TPE passengers, who will still use these services as they do now, as they will be part of the 4 trains an hour from Piccadilly that they are used to, plus all the passengers boarding going to the local stations who currently over crowd the Northern service.

I'm sure a better option would have been, keep all services the same as they were pre-2014 but just with extra carriages.

 

[northwichcat]

4 car 170s on the TPE semi fasts will be rammed, as you'll have a train load of TPE passengers, who will still use these services as they do now, as they will be part of the 4 trains an hour from Piccadilly that they are used to, plus all the passengers boarding going to the local stations who currently over crowd the Northern service.

But there would be a total of 6 services per hour.

I'm sure a better option would have been, keep all services the same as they were pre-2014 but just with extra carriages.

I liked the option proposed prior to North TPE electrification annoucements where it was proposed there would be a Piccadilly-York service every 15 minutes, with an additional Hull service where it best fitted.

 

[LowLevel]

One theory I had heard that is probably just mess room gossip but sort of makes sense would be to have a TPE Liverpool to Sheffield and Nottingham service but also retain the EMT service operating from Piccadilly to Norwich only - thus avoiding having to cross the EMT service over at or before Slade Lane and improving patching.

May well be rubbish but it would sort of make sense.

 

[Nevillehill]

Probably the likes of G4S or what other company can pay minimum wage and get away with it.

It won't be G4s as they ****ed. Up with the olympics

 

[Deerfold]

It won't be G4s as they ****ed. Up with the olympics

You a big fan of the Olympics?

G4S have won government contracts since then.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...overnment-contract-since-tagging-scandal.html

You do realise the comment you're replying to was 5 months and 17 pages ago?

 

[northwichcat]

I find it interesting Network Rail are to publish a Draft Northern RUS 1 month before the new franchise starts: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/upload...ute_Plans/Documents/Route Study Programme.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I find it interesting Network Rail are to publish a Draft Northern RUS 1 month before the new franchise starts: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/upload...ute_Plans/Documents/Route Study Programme.pdf

I think that's the start of the work (dark blue), not the publication (light blue).
It should be finished in time for Ordsall Chord/TP electrification completion.
Might well be impacted by HS2/3 decisions before then.
The Western/Sussex drafts are out not much more than half-way through their timescales.
They are supposed to be keyed to CP6 investment planning rather than franchise timescales.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think that's the start of the work (dark blue), not the publication (light blue).
It should be finished in time for Ordsall Chord/TP electrification completion.
Might well be impacted by HS2/3 decisions before then.
The Western/Sussex drafts are out not much more than half-way through their timescales.
They are supposed to be keyed to CP6 investment planning rather than franchise timescales.

There's a lot in the first two new 'route studies' about changes expected by 2043 - they are looking significantly further ahead than franchising dates. I think in general the old RUS programme was on a completely separate timetable to franchising as well.

 

[WatcherZero]

Old RUS program only tended to look at the next five year control period so was only really looking around 7 years or so ahead and focusing on immediate problems and exact interventions in fine detail. The new program looks upto 30 years ahead and tries to predict what the railway would have to look like by then to meet that expected demand then works backward asking what we would have to do between now and then to cater for it at general strategy rather than specific scheme level.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

While I agree changes may happen I think there's limited options for changes to North TPE. The bidder may be allowed to say Manchester Airport-Newcastle instead of Liverpool-Newcastle but how many services operate between Manchester and Leeds is pretty much set in stone now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The two things I think DfT may consider changing are the proposed change to Liverpool to Norwich and the proposed change to South TPE. However, that doesn't mean Liverpool to Norwich will remain if they decide to do something different, they might decide to give Leeds-Nottingham to EMT to tag on to Nottingham-Norwich, for instance as they do seem to be looking for places to operate 185s post-North TPE electrification and a TPE operated Liverpool-Nottingham service with 6 car 185s would work.

How many services an hour would then be on South TPE? Would they all start from Liverpool or would some start from Manchester Airport?

 

[northwichcat]

How many services an hour would then be on South TPE? Would they all start from Liverpool or would some start from Manchester Airport?

Consultation said there was an option for 3tph between Sheffield and Manchester and Sheffield trains could continue to Liverpool (via Warrington), Manchester Airport and Chester - not necessarily all 3 though.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Consultation said there was an option for 3tph between Sheffield and Manchester and Sheffield trains could continue to Liverpool (via Warrington), Manchester Airport and Chester - not necessarily all 3 though.

Interesting thanks. What about services beyond Shefield? Obviously slitting EMT's Liverpool- Norwich service at Nottingham has been suggested with TPE taking over the Liverpool- Nottingham section but that still leves 2tph beyond Sheffield. Personally I think one of those should go to Hull via Goole (as Selby will have 2 TPE tph) The other should either continue to Cleethorpes or could be diverted to Lincoln via Retford.

 

[faltskog36abba]

Consultation said there was an option for 3tph between Sheffield and Manchester and Sheffield trains could continue to Liverpool (via Warrington), Manchester Airport and Chester - not necessarily all 3 though.

There was talk a few years ago about running a Sheffield train service via The Ashbury's Phillips Park goods line into Victoria and beyond. Will any of the above services you have mentioned go to Chester via Victoria or Manchester Airport via The Ordsall Chord?
There seems to be a lot of talk on this site about North Transpennine services but little or nothing seems to be known about the futures services of the South Transpennine routes.

 

[cle]

Is there any benefit to Sheffield/Stockport round to Victoria and Huddersfield. Quite a roundabout route, but they need to go somewhere after all.

And would the Norwich train be included in those 3tph

 

[northwichcat]

There was talk a few years ago about running a Sheffield train service via The Ashbury's Phillips Park goods line into Victoria and beyond. Will any of the above services you have mentioned go to Chester via Victoria or Manchester Airport via The Ordsall Chord?
There seems to be a lot of talk on this site about North Transpennine services but little or nothing seems to be known about the futures services of the South Transpennine routes.

I think that pre-dates electrification announcements. There was talk about portion working to/from Sheffield with maybe one service to Preston/Liverpool and one to Chester/Manchester Airport but nothing's been said of Sheffield portion working since the various electrification announcements.