Northern December 2017 Timetable Stakeholder consultation

[jbg]

I thought it was going to be

Manchester-Hull - 6 car 185
Manchester-Leeds - 6 car 185

It certainly should be.

 

[northwichcat]

And you've 0% proof that it won't.

You brought up the idea and said it would happen, which is a blatant lie unless you have proof.

Never as far as I'm aware.

So there you go - another potential improvement from the changes.

However, you've just said that the service would be hourly instead of half hourly as now.

No I haven't. :roll:

Current standard pattern at Mirfield:
- Victoria to Leeds (hourly) - unaffected by the changes other than the additional call at Cottingley which might add a minute or two to the journey time to Leeds.
- Huddersfield to Wakefield - which you have said will change to being a Castleford service.
- Huddersfield to Leeds (hourly) - will be replaced by a call on a TPE service.

NO SERVICE REDUCTION - stop spreading false information because you don't like the proposal.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't know where you get that from, as there are already 5 fast tph, now. And TPX want a 6th.

If the TPX were reduced to 4 tph, then we'd have a far more reliable service.

Wrong again - TPE are required to run a 6th service. The proposal was originally made by Network Rail and DfT and has the approval of TfGM and Metro. First and Arriva will just be doing what their contracts require them to do.

If you didn't bother responding to the consultation then it's too late to complain now. If you did then you must have been in the minority who were against the changes.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I believe one of the fasts will call at Dewsbury and Stalybridge as Dewsbury goes to 3 TPE trains per Hour with one being an 802 eventually.

That was in the franchise announcements.

The solution proposed has been run through many times and several levels of consultations with buy in from local councils and user groups.

Accepted that yes there is a compromise but this benefits the whole region, rather than look at the individual stations.

As others have stated it has been said that stoppers should be able to be reintroduced once the electrification is complete and other Northern Hub/Northern Programmes/Great North Rail Project/Other Unambiguous North Name works are finished. And then again once Northern Powerhouse Rail is done there will be further improvements locally.

The benefit of the pausing of TPE electrification is it is allowing a much more holistic look at the route and the plans are being developed much more detailed and with more care and consultation.

 

[YorkshireBear]

You brought up the idea and said it would happen, which is a blatant lie unless you have proof.



So there you go - another potential improvement from the changes.



No I haven't. :roll:

Current standard pattern at Mirfield:
- Victoria to Leeds (hourly) - unaffected by the changes other than the additional call at Cottingley which might add a minute or two to the journey time to Leeds.
- Huddersfield to Wakefield - which you have said will change to being a Castleton service.
- Huddersfield to Leeds (hourly) - will be replaced by a call on a TPE service.

NO SERVICE REDUCTION - stop spreading false information because you don't like the proposal.

Impressive haha

 

[northwichcat]

I thought it was going to be

Manchester-Hull - 6 car 185
Manchester-Leeds - 6 car 185

I know there is supposed to be some doubling up but I don't know how many services will be doubled up. They've only guarantee they've given for 6 car is between Manchester and Sheffield.

 

[northwichcat]

Impressive haha

Yes it should be Castleford. Although, that wasn't any less accurate than some of jbg's claims.

 

[Philip]

In terms of the rolling stock, is this basically the plan:

Liverpool to Edinburgh via Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Newcastle: Class 68/Mk 5 coaches 2018-19, Class 802 bi-mode 2019>, possible for Class 397 once both routes are fully electric.

Liverpool to Scarborough and Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough: Class 185 2018-19, Class 68/Mk 5 coaches 2019>, option for Class 802 bi-mode to transfer to these routes if more 397s are ordered to work the all-electric routes.

Manchester to Hull and Leeds semi-fast services: Class 185 2018>, possible spare Class 802 bi-modes and 397s to eventually work the services once the electrification is sorted.

 

[jbg]

You brought up the idea and said it would happen, which is a blatant lie unless you have proof.



So there you go - another potential improvement from the changes.



No I haven't. :roll:

Current standard pattern at Mirfield:
- Victoria to Leeds (hourly) - unaffected by the changes other than the additional call at Cottingley which might add a minute or two to the journey time to Leeds.
- Huddersfield to Wakefield - which you have said will change to being a Castleford service.
- Huddersfield to Leeds (hourly) - will be replaced by a call on a TPE service.

NO SERVICE REDUCTION - stop spreading false information because you don't like the proposal.

What's Mirfield got to do with it?

Northern have admitted that our station will have a reduced service.

You asked: "when was the last time TPE made a call at Mirfield following a Northern cancellation", never, so what's your point?

A service is cancelled, and another TOC doesn't call, and you call it an improvement.

There WILL be 1 less train per hour, as TPX run 1 tph extra, and Northern run 2 tph fewer.

 

[jbg]

Yes it should be Castleford. Although, that wasn't any less accurate than some of jbg's claims.

Well, as that was in the plan, you've yet again shown you've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well, as that was in the plan, you've yet again shown you've no idea what you're talking about.

A simple mistype does not represent that at all.

Which station is your station as you have not said from what I can see? Or is it Mirfield....

 

[northwichcat]

There WILL be 1 less train per hour, as TPX run 1 tph extra, and Northern run 2 tph fewer.

I was going to watch Michael McIntrye on the TV this evening but that comment is as hilarious as one of his jokes.

Yes there's fewer services because two short services will be replaced by one longer service. However, no stations will get fewer calls. As I mentioned already Batley will get double the number of services it gets currently at off-peak times.

A service is cancelled, and another TOC doesn't call, and you call it an improvement.

You were claiming TPE will miss out stations when it's convenient so their train recovers time, meaning the service 'will' be worse (you didn't even say could which made it sound like First have said that will be their plan A during disruption.)

I made the counter argument that TPE will have calling rights at stations (such as Mirfield) so will be able to make additional calls at such stations when services are cancelled, something you admitted doesn't happen currently, meaning it's just as likely such stations will benefit from the service transferring to TPE.

Northern have admitted that our station will have a reduced service.

What is your station and what was their exact response - was it 'the new operator of the route will provide fewer calls than we currently provide' or was it 'we will provide fewer calls as the standard pattern service is being transferred to another operator'?

 

[northwichcat]

Well, as that was in the plan, you've yet again shown you've no idea what the **** you're talking about.

I admitted my mistype was incorrect as soon as it was pointed out. Now tell us what your local station is which will then prove if you've made a valid point or just clogged up this thread with 15 posts of moaning about something that isn't going to happen.

 

[hibtastic]

I made the counter argument that TPE will have calling rights at stations (such as Mirfield) so will be able to make additional calls at such stations when services are cancelled, something you admitted doesn't happen currently, meaning it's just as likely such stations will benefit from the service transferring to TPE.

TPE currently do this at Staly, if a service is running late and is turned around short at Stalybridge, they often arrange for the following Manchester Airport service to stop additionally to pick up passengers. They wont just leave people waiting on platforms if they can help it (from my experience), as frustrating as it is when your train stops short of your final destination.

 

[pdq]

Do I read this correctly for Batley to Huddersfield : 2 x TPE 'skip stop' per hour? If so, that's an improvement especially on the current east bound timetable. Then there's mention of a Southport to Leeds stopper and a Victoria to Leeds stopper. Are these the same train or is one via HUD and the other on the Caldervale line? I assume, as they are stoppers, that it/they will call at Batley as well.

For passengers unable to make their journey due to skip stopping (eg Batley to Ravensthorpe) would the intention be to timetable it with a sensible connection via Mirfield with a double back, or is it tough luck?

 

[Starmill]

Why we need another train taking a very convoluted route between Knottingley and Leeds, I've no idea.

You don't want a Leeds service for Pontefract Tanshelf, Streethouse or Featherstone? You don't think Pontefract Monkhill and Knottingley might do well with more than 1tph? Clearly you're not that interested in the needs of Pontefract. And why do you think so few people use the existing service? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful. How would you provide additional services at Normanton, too? If not by extending the service from Huddersfield? 1tph is not sufficient for Normanton clearly. Extra trains to Castleford and Wakefield will allow Normanton passengers two journeys per hour to Leeds. You haven't proposed anything that benefits local services in the area at all.

Finally, after you've made all of this fuss, I'd love to know what your station is. How are we all supposed to know where you live?

 

[jbg]

I was going to watch Michael McIntrye on the TV this evening but that comment is as hilarious as one of his jokes.

Yes there's fewer services because two short services will be replaced by one longer service. However, no stations will get fewer calls. As I mentioned already Batley will get double the number of services it gets currently at off-peak times.



You were claiming TPE will miss out stations when it's convenient so their train recovers time, meaning the service 'will' be worse (you didn't even say could which made it sound like First have said that will be their plan A during disruption.)

I made the counter argument that TPE will have calling rights at stations (such as Mirfield) so will be able to make additional calls at such stations when services are cancelled, something you admitted doesn't happen currently, meaning it's just as likely such stations will benefit from the service transferring to TPE.



What is your station and what was their exact response - was it 'the new operator of the route will provide fewer calls than we currently provide' or was it 'we will provide fewer calls as the standard pattern service is being transferred to another operator'?

Why ask what my station is? You just said you knew what it was in the same post, after you'd lied about it before, saying otherwise.

Mirfield stopping pattern is totally different to ours, as it is on 2 different lines.

You say Batly will get double the services off-peak, as it gets 2 tph now, are you pretending it's going to get 4?

Northern have admitted our total number of services will be reduced.

 

[Starmill]

Why ask what my station is? You just said you knew what it was in the same post, after you'd lied about it before, saying otherwise.

What on earth are you talking about? Tell us which station you're referring to or stop making unverified claims.

 

[Starmill]

Mirfield stopping pattern is totally different to ours, as it is on 2 different lines.

Well, we would know that if you told us which station it was wouldn't we.

Northern have admitted our total number of services will be reduced.

Unreferenced claim...

 

[jbg]

You don't want a Leeds service for Pontefract Tanshelf, Streethouse or Featherstone? You don't think Pontefract Monkhill and Knottingley might do well with more than 1tph? Clearly you're not that interested in the needs of Pontefract. And why do you think so few people use the existing service? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful. How would you provide additional services at Normanton, too? If not by extending the service from Huddersfield? 1tph is not sufficient for Normanton clearly. Extra trains to Castleford and Wakefield will allow Normanton passengers two journeys per hour to Leeds. You haven't proposed anything that benefits local services in the area at all.

Finally, after you've made all of this fuss, I'd love to know what your station is. How are we all supposed to know where you live?

You really don't know how to find-out?

Well, I can see yours is on the Styal Line.

 

[jbg]

Well, we would know that if you told us which station it was wouldn't we.

Jcolins already said what it is, then in the same post asked what it was, when he obviously already knew.

 

[jbg]

Unreferenced claim...

Terribly sorry, but I didn't record the conversation.

 

[Darandio]

You really don't know how to find-out?

Well, I can see yours is on the Styal Line.

Oh, this is a game? Shouldn't it be in the 'Quizzes & Games' section?

 

[jbg]

You don't want a Leeds service for Pontefract Tanshelf, Streethouse or Featherstone? You don't think Pontefract Monkhill and Knottingley might do well with more than 1tph? Clearly you're not that interested in the needs of Pontefract. And why do you think so few people use the existing service? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful. How would you provide additional services at Normanton, too? If not by extending the service from Huddersfield? 1tph is not sufficient for Normanton clearly. Extra trains to Castleford and Wakefield will allow Normanton passengers two journeys per hour to Leeds. You haven't proposed anything that benefits local services in the area at all.

Finally, after you've made all of this fuss, I'd love to know what your station is. How are we all supposed to know where you live?

The point is, that a vast number of journeys are to Wakefield Westgate to connect with the London Trains.

A journey that is possible direct by Grand Central from Mirfield, 4 times a day, but how odd, the parent company of GC will no longer connect directly into a competitors services anymore.

So, "Extra trains to Castleford and Wakefield will allow Normanton passengers two journeys per hour to Leeds" means that Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield will now have NO direct services to Westgate.

If Pontefract Tanshelf, Streethouse or Featherstone were so important, why haven't they ever had a Sunday service to anywhere?

This is the whole point, drastically ruining perfectly good service patterns for the sake of extra trains that aren't needed.

Longer trains on current patterns.

 

[jbg]

Oh, this is a game? Shouldn't it be in the 'Quizzes & Games' section?

No, the "learn how to read" section.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm still struggling to see the need for the extra TPE North service myself when services are going to be strengthened with the possibility of doubling up 185s before much of the new stock comes in. All it seems to do is mess things up for many of the local stations with the skip stop arrangements and breaking of connections, which were already haphazard. The last round of retimings led to breaking connections particularly in the evening which sometimes only work with technically not allowed double backs, sometimes not at all.

I'm sure an additional 'L&YR' fast service via the Calder Valley, calling maybe Rochdale & Hebden Bridge then Kirkgate would be more useful and less disruptive.

It's not even like TPE haven't called at local stations before during disruption making this a new opportunity, it has happened, much to the amusement of regular passengers!

 

[jbg]

I'm still struggling to see the need for the extra TPE North service when services are going to be strengthened with the possibility of doubling up 185s before much of the new stock comes in. All it seems to do is mess things up for many of the local stations with the skip stop arrangements and breaking of connections, which were already haphazard. The last round of retimings led to breaking connections particularly in the evening which sometimes only work with technically not allowed double backs, sometimes not at all.

I'm sure an additional 'L&YR' fast service via the Calder Valley, calling maybe Rochdale & Hebden Bridge then Kirkgate would be more useful and less disruptive.

It's not even like TPE haven't called at local stations before during disruption making this a new opportunity, it has happened, much to the amusement of regular passengers!

Absolutely right.

 

[Ianno87]

The point is, that a vast number of journeys are to Wakefield Westgate to connect with the London Trains.

A "vast" number of a small number of journeys is an even smaller number.

Yes, a few people lose out. But I would imagine that the changes are designed to be of benefit to many, many more people.

Folks from the Huddersfield direction still can access London VTEC trains via Leeds; all stations AIUI will retain at least one direct Leeds service per hour (there being no intermediate stations between Kirkgate and Mirfield.

Truth is that trains over the Kirkgate-Westgate single line are a huge constraint in the whole area's timetable. Not only do they chew up main line paths at Westgate, but the whole area's timetables have to be driven around how they fit in, as well as trying to be economical with use of drivers and the train fleet.

Plus, isn't there a town centre bus between Westgate and Kirkgate, costing around 50p or so (free to passholders). What's wrong with that? Much more frequent than the hourly train (and only a substantially longer journey time in one direction around its loop).

 

[yorkie]

No, the "learn how to read" section.

Stop making duplicate accounts.

I knew your combative posting style seemed familiar, but once you started going on about Mirfield, it became obvious.

We will detect all future duplicate accounts, as we have before, so don't bother trying again.

Anyway, back on topic....

 

[Spartacus]

You don't want a Leeds service for Pontefract Tanshelf, Streethouse or Featherstone? You don't think Pontefract Monkhill and Knottingley might do well with more than 1tph? Clearly you're not that interested in the needs of Pontefract. And why do you think so few people use the existing service? Because it doesn't go anywhere useful. How would you provide additional services at Normanton, too? If not by extending the service from Huddersfield? 1tph is not sufficient for Normanton clearly. Extra trains to Castleford and Wakefield will allow Normanton passengers two journeys per hour to Leeds. You haven't proposed anything that benefits local services in the area at all.

Playing devil's advocate, because all this is getting rather heated now, I do think the needs of Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield probably outweigh those of Streethouse and Featherstone. I'm leaving Tanshelf out because Monkhill is very close and already has a service to Leeds. Having travelled on it regularly I'm not sure Knottingley could use 2 trains an hour to Leeds any more than Huddersfield need 6 expresses, though Pontefract certainly could. Given the reduction in power station traffic I'd be surprised if making more efficient use of the reversal at Knottingley, wouldn't give at least some opportunity, though things are tight so diagrams would need to change.

Normanton's a pretty easy one to provide for: the current semi-fasts have quite a few allowances in approaching Stourton Jn and Horbury Jn or Meadowhall, up to 7 minutes, which should be more than enough for a Normanton stop in those.