Northern timetable changes May 2019

[driver_m]

The east end bays at Chester are going to be quite busy fitting in the turnround for these trains and the new Halton Curve service as well as the existing Manchester via Northwich service.
Looks like the Liverpool service is going to be parked on top of the Northwich service in P6, which has a long layover.

At least there will be platform 7b to use as well for a quick turnaround if needed. Very few through services use it so shouldn't be too much of a problem. Good to see Chester becoming a bit of a hub.

 

[Greybeard33]

From a cursory look at the Bolton line, the post-electrification changes are:

• Current Victoria - Buckshaw Parkway service becomes Vic - Preston
• Current Blackpool North - Piccadilly service becomes Blackpool North - Hazel Grove (with one morning peak northbound service from Stoke instead)
• Current Manchester Airport - Preston/Barrow service becomes Airport - Blackpool North

These services are mostly timed for 100mph 319s. Times at Bolton are unchanged, within a minute or two.

On the WCML, the current Airport - Blackpool North EMU service becomes Airport - Barrow/Windermere DMU. Windermere gets 4tpd, Barrow 10tpd. Mostly timed for 90mph 158s, but some for 75mph Sprinters. Times at Wigan North Western are mostly unchanged, within a minute or two.

As this is pretty much the timetable originally planned for May 2018, it rather gives the lie to Northern's claim that the electrification delay caused a complete rewrite. Essentially what was done was to curtail or split some services, and swap Blackpool and Lancaster services between the Bolton and Wigan routes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From a cursory look at the Bolton line, the post-electrification changes are:

• Current Victoria - Buckshaw Parkway service becomes Vic - Preston
• Current Blackpool North - Piccadilly service becomes Blackpool North - Hazel Grove (with one morning peak northbound service from Stoke instead)
• Current Manchester Airport - Preston/Barrow service becomes Airport - Blackpool North

These services are mostly timed for 100mph 319s. Times at Bolton are unchanged, within a minute or two.

On the WCML, the current Airport - Blackpool North EMU service becomes Airport - Barrow/Windermere DMU. Windermere gets 4tpd, Barrow 10tpd. Mostly timed for 90mph 158s, but some for 75mph Sprinters. Times at Wigan North Western are mostly unchanged, within a minute or two.

As this is pretty much the timetable originally planned for May 2018, it rather gives the lie to Northern's claim that the electrification delay caused a complete rewrite. Essentially what was done was to curtail or split some services, and swap Blackpool and Lancaster services between the Bolton and Wigan routes.

Curious that the Vic-Preston EMU does not go through to Blackpool.
The "Cumbria" services via Wigan mostly cycle hourly between Windermere/Barrow/Preston terminators.
Disappointing that the Preston terminator doesn't go through to at least Lancaster.
They all seem to be diesel worked, which seems to defeat the purpose of electrification.
There will only be 1tph EMU over Chat Moss from May, east of Earlestown (the Liverpool-Airport-Crewe stopper).
The TPE Liverpool-Newcastle service should go electric west of Victoria when 802s start.

 

[Ianno87]

As this is pretty much the timetable originally planned for May 2018, it rather gives the lie to Northern's claim that the electrification delay caused a complete rewrite. Essentially what was done was to curtail or split some services, and swap Blackpool and Lancaster services between the Bolton and Wigan routes.

Not really - May 2018 originally had Macclesfield-Blackpool hourly, for starters.

I think this is more a gentle inctemental evolution of the "fallback" plan.

 

[Greybeard33]

Curious that the Vic-Preston EMU does not go through to Blackpool.

I believe this is just reverting to the destination pairing prior to Phase 1 electrification, when the diesel services from Blackpool were to the Airport, Hazel Grove and Liverpool, with the Vic service terminating at Preston.

The "Cumbria" services via Wigan mostly cycle hourly between Windermere/Barrow/Preston terminators.
Disappointing that the Preston terminator doesn't go through to at least Lancaster.
They all seem to be diesel worked, which seems to defeat the purpose of electrification.

The Preston terminators are temporary STP workings, presumably due to non-availability of 195s. If you look later in the year, the Working Timetable is for all Cumbria via Wigan services to go to either Barrow or Windermere, 10tpd and 4tpd respectively. See e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...-0159?stp=WVS&show=pax-calls&order=wtt&toc=NT

 

[Puffing Devil]

We're seeing another downside today of extending Crewe-Manchester Services via the Airport and Liverpool:

The units are scheduled Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe-Stockport-Manchester, and vice-versa.

With the flooding today we're seeing the Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe services turning at Alderley Edge to regain time. That means no service from Crewe to Manchester stopping at Goostrey or Chelford, with only one of five training making the stops today. Also, no additional calls from other services to rescue the stranded passengers.

 

[tommy2215]

We're seeing another downside today of extending Crewe-Manchester Services via the Airport and Liverpool:

The units are scheduled Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe-Stockport-Manchester, and vice-versa.

With the flooding today we're seeing the Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe services turning at Alderley Edge to regain time. That means no service from Crewe to Manchester stopping at Goostrey or Chelford, with only one of five training making the stops today. Also, no additional calls from other services to rescue the stranded passengers.

Huh? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/SYA/2019/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=call&order=wtt looking at this all LLS-Crewe via Manchester Airport are still running as before.

There's an hourly service from Crewe to Man Pic stopping at Goostrey and Chelford http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...19/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Also the Alderley Edge terminators have existed for a while now

Shame the Nottingham-Bradford trains haven't started yet

 

[Class 170101]

Looking at that neck of the woods, the majority of Manchester - Kirkby services have been split at Wigan with only four through services to Manchester in the morning, and two return journeys in the evening, remaining. Importantly, this means there will be no return, off-peak journey available for people looking for a day in Manchester from stations on the Kirkby line, without changing at Wigan. I'm not against this, even though it does rather spoil my nice little commute from Pemberton, but it's certainly going to upset some people.

Seems a bit bizarre that the Kirkby service terminates at Wigan Wallgate from the west when there is also a service from Manchester Victoria terminating at Wigan Wallgate from the east. Surely it would have been better to have linked these two services together to maintain through journeys from the Kirkby route off peak?

 

[Mathew S]

Seems a bit bizarre that the Kirkby service terminates at Wigan Wallgate from the west when there is also a service from Manchester Victoria terminating at Wigan Wallgate from the east. Surely it would have been better to have linked these two services together to maintain through journeys from the Kirkby route off peak?

Don't get me started!
I assume it's some attempt to improve reliability, but the way they've timetabled them there's no clear connection to/from Manchester. I cannot conceive of a reason not to timetable the Kirkby shuttle in a way that connects with a Manchester service. It's idiotic.

 

[VT 390]

Don't get me started!
I assume it's some attempt to improve reliability, but the way they've timetabled them there's no clear connection to/from Manchester. I cannot conceive of a reason not to timetable the Kirkby shuttle in a way that connects with a Manchester service. It's idiotic.

Though it is not ideal is there a better connecting service to Manchester from Wigan North Western instead which is quicker than waiting for the next Wigan Wallgate service?

 

[CHAPS2034]

Huh? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/SYA/2019/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=call&order=wtt looking at this all LLS-Crewe via Manchester Airport are still running as before.

There's an hourly service from Crewe to Man Pic stopping at Goostrey and Chelford http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...19/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

If you look at Puffing Devil's post, he/she said (with my bolding)

With the flooding today we're seeing the Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe services turning at Alderley Edge to regain time.

and so was referring to the fact with these diagrams are subject to turning short during periods of delay and not serving some stations. These diagrams are continuing into the summer.

On another note, with the pause in training on 195s and 331s due to the CAF issues, one wonders how achievable these timetable changes will be.

 

[js1000]

We're seeing another downside today of extending Crewe-Manchester Services via the Airport and Liverpool:

The units are scheduled Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe-Stockport-Manchester, and vice-versa.

With the flooding today we're seeing the Liverpool-Airport-Alderley Edge-Crewe services turning at Alderley Edge to regain time. That means no service from Crewe to Manchester stopping at Goostrey or Chelford, with only one of five training making the stops today. Also, no additional calls from other services to rescue the stranded passengers.

Always been of the opinion that Northern should have kept a one stopper per hour between Crewe and Manchester and another between Liverpool to Manchester. Instead they rolled it into one service which although operationally is more efficient, hugely increased the susceptibility to widespread chaos across the Northern network in the event of a fault or adverse weather as demonstrated yet again today.

I'm slightly concerned that Northern/TPE have not completely resolved the Manchester Airport to Castefield situation by publishing the timetable yet. Many of the timetable problems Northern suffered last year across Manchester, Lancashire and beyond was the result of a lack of resilience through this congested corridor. This is the key pinch point that has to have a logical timetable with enough padding in the schedule to absorb delays.

 

[Mathew S]

Though it is not ideal is there a better connecting service to Manchester from Wigan North Western instead which is quicker than waiting for the next Wigan Wallgate service?

From what I can see, no. NRE gives the xx55 Man Vic - Wallgate arriving xx28 to connect onto an xx58 towards Kirkby. Not really very satisfactory.

 

[adrock1976]

At least there will be platform 7b to use as well for a quick turnaround if needed. Very few through services use it so shouldn't be too much of a problem. Good to see Chester becoming a bit of a hub.

Is Platform 7 at Chester specially dedicated for the Merseyrail services? I seem to remember seeing Merseyrail trains at the platform farthest away from the main entrance when I have passed through or changed trains there.

 

[VT 390]

Is Platform 7 at Chester specially dedicated for the Merseyrail services? I seem to remember seeing Merseyrail trains at the platform farthest away from the main entrance when I have passed through or changed trains there.

I think it is the only one Merseyrail can actually use as it is the only platform electrified at Chester.

 

[adrock1976]

Huh? http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/SYA/2019/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=call&order=wtt looking at this all LLS-Crewe via Manchester Airport are still running as before.

There's an hourly service from Crewe to Man Pic stopping at Goostrey and Chelford http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...19/05/20/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Also the Alderley Edge terminators have existed for a while now

Shame the Nottingham-Bradford trains haven't started yet

I never realised that there were direct trains between Llanishen and Crewe via Manchester Airport. That would be a miracle, bearing in mind that there are no wires north of Cardiff Central, and no wires between Newport (Gwent) and Crewe via Hereford and Shrewsbury.

On a serious note, I believe it is a long standing forum policy not to use abbreviations, acronyms, station codes, or jargon without first saying what it means.

 

[mrcaa]

I think it is the only one Merseyrail can actually use as it is the only platform electrified at Chester.

They basically have exclusive use of platform 7b (the west end of that platform) for this reason and because there's one roughly every 15 minutes. I've rarely seen platform 7a used though, which is the east end of the platform, so that might get more use now.

 

[tbtc]

So the plan of "running lots of separate hourly services, causing congestion on limited infrastructure " - e.g. another service from Leeds to Halifax - because we must have a variety of direct destinations rather than the boring answer of just putting longer trains on existing paths....

...great... clearly the Castlefield Corridor disruption has taught people nothing.

The political need for "putting towns on the map with more longer distance destinations" beats just running simpler timetables with longer trains.

And we wonder why we have such high subsidies and unreliable timetables oop north...

Seems a bit bizarre that the Kirkby service terminates at Wigan Wallgate from the west when there is also a service from Manchester Victoria terminating at Wigan Wallgate from the east. Surely it would have been better to have linked these two services together to maintain through journeys from the Kirkby route off peak?

I'm not defending the change, I don't know the full reasons, but one guess would be that it can be run with a single short unit to provide additional capacity on the other services.

For example, I'd rather that we had services to/through Manchester at least three coaches long, but you can get away with a single 153 on Wallgate - Kirkby - Wallgate (seven minute layover at each end, so pretty reliable).

Whereas, given the complicate diagrams that Northern have, you might end up otherwise with a three/four coach Sprinter west of Wigan whilst a two coach Pacer struggles with loads in Manchester.

Always been of the opinion that Northern should have kept a one stopper per hour between Crewe and Manchester and another between Liverpool to Manchester. Instead they rolled it into one service which although operationally is more efficient, hugely increased the susceptibility to widespread chaos across the Northern network in the event of a fault or adverse weather as demonstrated yet again today

This is the problem with Manchester Airport.... you could make the xx:28 from Lime Street terminate at Manchester Victoria but then you'd lose the through Airport service to/from St Helens, Eccles etc, which would cause a lot of arguments from the kind of people who use a through service once a year - hence the reason we are running such a variety of hourly services to the Airport. It'd be operationally better to have separate services (Liverpool - Victoria and also Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe), I'd welcome it, but I think we are too hung up on direct Airport services.

(Liverpool would obviously retain an hourly service to Manchester Airport via Warrington, though the merits of running a DMU all that way under the wires from Oxford Road is perhaps another story!)

 

[vlad]

They basically have exclusive use of platform 7b (the west end of that platform) for this reason and because there's one roughly every 15 minutes. I've rarely seen platform 7a used though, which is the east end of the platform, so that might get more use now.

My experience is that the hourly TfW Llandudno to Manchester trains sneak in between the Merseyrail terminators to use platform 7A - but then perhaps that only happens when I'm in Chester. I suppose there's a reason they don't use platform 4.

 

[Chester1]

From a cursory look at the Bolton line, the post-electrification changes are:

• Current Victoria - Buckshaw Parkway service becomes Vic - Preston
• Current Blackpool North - Piccadilly service becomes Blackpool North - Hazel Grove (with one morning peak northbound service from Stoke instead)
• Current Manchester Airport - Preston/Barrow service becomes Airport - Blackpool North

These services are mostly timed for 100mph 319s. Times at Bolton are unchanged, within a minute or two.

On the WCML, the current Airport - Blackpool North EMU service becomes Airport - Barrow/Windermere DMU. Windermere gets 4tpd, Barrow 10tpd. Mostly timed for 90mph 158s, but some for 75mph Sprinters. Times at Wigan North Western are mostly unchanged, within a minute or two.

As this is pretty much the timetable originally planned for May 2018, it rather gives the lie to Northern's claim that the electrification delay caused a complete rewrite. Essentially what was done was to curtail or split some services, and swap Blackpool and Lancaster services between the Bolton and Wigan routes.

That should mean the 185s are going back to TPE. That would allow more doubling up, presumably of selected Liverpool-Newcastle services. Much needed extra capacity. 75mph paths for Cumbria-Airport is not great though. I guess there are not enough 158s to run all services?

3tph of EMUs for Manchester-Preston will be a big improvement and hopefully allow a handful of Pacers to go to scrap or to South Wales.

The Chester service seems to be what was expected although I worry that TfW will use it as an excuse to run 2 coach units on Llandudno-Manchester services.

 

[Greybeard33]

Don't get me started!
I assume it's some attempt to improve reliability, but the way they've timetabled them there's no clear connection to/from Manchester. I cannot conceive of a reason not to timetable the Kirkby shuttle in a way that connects with a Manchester service. It's idiotic.

I do not think this is about reliability. The current timetable has nearly 30 minutes turnaround time at Kirkby, while the new one has the same paths between Victoria and Wallgate, but with less than 20 minutes turnaround at Wallgate.

I suspect the split at Wallgate is a consequence of Network Rail refusing to agree paths for a 4th hourly stopping service (Wallgate - Victoria) on the Atherton line, as required by the Northern franchise agreement, in addition to the Kirkby service and the two semi-fast Southport ones. This was foreshadowed in the track access consultation documents published last December, which said NR had expressed concern over the effect this extra service would have on punctuality performance in the Central Manchester area.

The current timetable requires three diagrams for the Kirkby - Vic service. The May timetable requires two diagrams for the Wallgate - Vic shuttle and one diagram for Kirkby - Wallgate. If the 4th train had gone ahead, it would also have needed two diagrams. But if Northern instead uses these two units to strengthen the Wallgate - Vic portion of the split service, it can provide the same hourly capacity between Wallgate and Vic as if the 4th service had gone ahead. Whereas strengthening all three diagrams of the existing through service would need an extra DMU, not provisioned in Northern's rolling stock plan.

Edit: I see tbtc got there before me!

 

[Mathew S]

So the plan of "running lots of separate hourly services, causing congestion on limited infrastructure " - e.g. another service from Leeds to Halifax - because we must have a variety of direct destinations rather than the boring answer of just putting longer trains on existing paths....

...great... clearly the Castlefield Corridor disruption has taught people nothing.

The political need for "putting towns on the map with more longer distance destinations" beats just running simpler timetables with longer trains.

And we wonder why we have such high subsidies and unreliable timetables oop north...



I'm not defending the change, I don't know the full reasons, but one guess would be that it can be run with a single short unit to provide additional capacity on the other services.

For example, I'd rather that we had services to/through Manchester at least three coaches long, but you can get away with a single 153 on Wallgate - Kirkby - Wallgate (seven minute layover at each end, so pretty reliable).

Whereas, given the complicate diagrams that Northern have, you might end up otherwise with a three/four coach Sprinter west of Wigan whilst a two coach Pacer struggles with loads in Manchester.



This is the problem with Manchester Airport.... you could make the xx:28 from Lime Street terminate at Manchester Victoria but then you'd lose the through Airport service to/from St Helens, Eccles etc, which would cause a lot of arguments from the kind of people who use a through service once a year - hence the reason we are running such a variety of hourly services to the Airport. It'd be operationally better to have separate services (Liverpool - Victoria and also Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe), I'd welcome it, but I think we are too hung up on direct Airport services.

(Liverpool would obviously retain an hourly service to Manchester Airport via Warrington, though the merits of running a DMU all that way under the wires from Oxford Road is perhaps another story!)

I do not think this is about reliability. The current timetable has nearly 30 minutes turnaround time at Kirkby, while the new one has the same paths between Victoria and Wallgate, but with less than 20 minutes turnaround at Wallgate.

I suspect the split at Wallgate is a consequence of Network Rail refusing to agree paths for a 4th hourly stopping service (Wallgate - Victoria) on the Atherton line, as required by the Northern franchise agreement, in addition to the Kirkby service and the two semi-fast Southport ones. This was foreshadowed in the track access consultation documents published last December, which said NR had expressed concern over the effect this extra service would have on punctuality performance in the Central Manchester area.

The current timetable requires three diagrams for the Kirkby - Vic service. The May timetable requires two diagrams for the Wallgate - Vic shuttle and one diagram for Kirkby - Wallgate. If the 4th train had gone ahead, it would also have needed two diagrams. But if Northern instead uses these two units to strengthen the Wallgate - Vic portion of the split service, it can provide the same hourly capacity between Wallgate and Vic as if the 4th service had gone ahead. Whereas strengthening all three diagrams of the existing through service would need an extra DMU, not provisioned in Northern's rolling stock plan.

Edit: I see tbtc got there before me!

Agreed, both. I'm sure it will have a positive effect on services Wigan - Manchester. What I don't get is why the services can't be better timetabled to connect with a Manchester train from Wigan - even from 'over the road'.

For example, I'd rather that we had services to/through Manchester at least three coaches long, but you can get away with a single 153 on Wallgate - Kirkby - Wallgate (seven minute layover at each end, so pretty reliable).

I didn't think 153s could run into Wallgate? Something to do with platform clearance?

 

[Greybeard33]

That should mean the 185s are going back to TPE. That would allow more doubling up, presumably of selected Liverpool-Newcastle services. Much needed extra capacity.

From TPE North Route thread:

Now the plan is that the extended turns at Newcastle and Scarborough will happen as planned with the 2 extra 185’s and further changes to unit allocations and introducing new services will go ahead when Mk5’s begin service (removal of the 170 for example).

So the ex-Northern 185s will provide improved resilience not extra capacity.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is the problem with Manchester Airport.... you could make the xx:28 from Lime Street terminate at Manchester Victoria but then you'd lose the through Airport service to/from St Helens, Eccles etc, which would cause a lot of arguments from the kind of people who use a through service once a year - hence the reason we are running such a variety of hourly services to the Airport. It'd be operationally better to have separate services (Liverpool - Victoria and also Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe), I'd welcome it, but I think we are too hung up on direct Airport services.

What might carry more weight are the arguments from people who commute daily from the Chat Moss stations to Piccadilly, and do not want to traipse a mile across Manchester from Victoria. Operationally it is best for trains into Piccadilly from the Chat Moss line to carry on to the Airport, so they do not conflict with trains on the Stockport line.

 

[Eccles1983]

153's cannot go through wallgate. It smashes up the platforms.

 

[43074]

So the plan of "running lots of separate hourly services, causing congestion on limited infrastructure " - e.g. another service from Leeds to Halifax - because we must have a variety of direct destinations rather than the boring answer of just putting longer trains on existing paths....

...And with the consequence that actually you end up with the tail wagging the dog in some cases because the Leeds to Chester service has to fit around trains on the WCML through Warrington Bank Quay for instance which wasn't something that would be considered at all with just a Leeds to Man Vic train. There's so much pathing (and consequently extended journey times) in the schedules they aren't remotely competitive over the longer distances anyway.

The political need for "putting towns on the map with more longer distance destinations" beats just running simpler timetables with longer trains.

I wouldn't object to simpler but more frequent services, Northern could do with a Southern region style approach being applied on their urban routes, lots of half hourly pairs of services making things nice and simple.

This is the problem with Manchester Airport.... you could make the xx:28 from Lime Street terminate at Manchester Victoria but then you'd lose the through Airport service to/from St Helens, Eccles etc, which would cause a lot of arguments from the kind of people who use a through service once a year - hence the reason we are running such a variety of hourly services to the Airport. It'd be operationally better to have separate services (Liverpool - Victoria and also Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe), I'd welcome it, but I think we are too hung up on direct Airport services...

To be honest I think it would be possible to rationalise things towards the Airport without losing too many of the destinations - e.g. even if it were limited it to 6 fast trains and 2 all stations services per hour it would still be possible to run direct from Liverpool & Chester via Newton-le-Willows, Middlesbrough & Newcastle via Manchester Vic and Blackpool and Scotland via Bolton, at a cost of 'only' the direct Sheffield and Lake District services.

 

[js1000]

So the plan of "running lots of separate hourly services, causing congestion on limited infrastructure " - e.g. another service from Leeds to Halifax - because we must have a variety of direct destinations rather than the boring answer of just putting longer trains on existing paths....

...great... clearly the Castlefield Corridor disruption has taught people nothing.

The political need for "putting towns on the map with more longer distance destinations" beats just running simpler timetables with longer trains.

And we wonder why we have such high subsidies and unreliable timetables oop north...



I'm not defending the change, I don't know the full reasons, but one guess would be that it can be run with a single short unit to provide additional capacity on the other services.

For example, I'd rather that we had services to/through Manchester at least three coaches long, but you can get away with a single 153 on Wallgate - Kirkby - Wallgate (seven minute layover at each end, so pretty reliable).

Whereas, given the complicate diagrams that Northern have, you might end up otherwise with a three/four coach Sprinter west of Wigan whilst a two coach Pacer struggles with loads in Manchester.



This is the problem with Manchester Airport.... you could make the xx:28 from Lime Street terminate at Manchester Victoria but then you'd lose the through Airport service to/from St Helens, Eccles etc, which would cause a lot of arguments from the kind of people who use a through service once a year - hence the reason we are running such a variety of hourly services to the Airport. It'd be operationally better to have separate services (Liverpool - Victoria and also Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe), I'd welcome it, but I think we are too hung up on direct Airport services.

(Liverpool would obviously retain an hourly service to Manchester Airport via Warrington, though the merits of running a DMU all that way under the wires from Oxford Road is perhaps another story!)

No, I agree entirely. The parochial nature of railways in the north, particularly the "golden carrot" of a direct rail service to Manchester Airport is a millstone around the neck in establishing efficiency. We have a daft situation of Liverpool to Manchester Airport via Warrington being one of our local services. Prior to May 2018 this was an electrified stopper from Crewe. Now we have a noisy, grotty diesel train. Apparently this somehow represents an improvement to Arriva.

The problem as I see it is insufficient "padding" at Manchester Airport. Even TPE are effectively operating an amended timetable until the end of the year because of delays in services to the Airport. The situation is only going to get trickier at the Airport when longer TPE/Northern trains are introduced and this will impinge on platform capacity.

If they want to run direct services to/from the Airport then fine. But they're going to have to think more creatively in how to achieve a reliable service. Maybe direct services to/from the Airport could be padded against delays by introducing some more calling points on the Styal Line commuter stations. The maximum speed on that line is 70mph and there isn't a great deal of difference between the time it takes for commuter trains (24 mins) on that line that call at all stations and express services (18 mins) from Piccadilly. If direct services are running late just skip the scheduled stop to make up some lost time. Conversely, the increased number of services (above TSR quantum) will make up for the inconvenience.

 

[Esker-pades]

No, I agree entirely. The parochial nature of railways in the north, particularly the "golden carrot" of a direct rail service to Manchester Airport is a millstone around the neck in establishing efficiency. We have a daft situation of Liverpool to Manchester Airport via Warrington being one of our local services. Prior to May 2018 this was an electrified stopper from Crewe. Now we have a noisy, grotty diesel train. Apparently this somehow represents an improvement to Arriva.

The problem as I see it is insufficient "padding" at Manchester Airport. Even TPE are effectively operating an amended timetable until the end of the year because of delays in services to the Airport. The situation is only going to get trickier at the Airport when longer TPE/Northern trains are introduced and this will impinge on platform capacity.

If they want to run direct services to/from the Airport then fine. But they're going to have to think more creatively in how to achieve a reliable service. Maybe direct services to/from the Airport could be padded against delays by introducing some more calling points on the Styal Line commuter stations. The maximum speed on that line is 70mph and there isn't a great deal of difference between the time it takes for commuter trains (24 mins) on that line that call at all stations and express services (18 mins) from Piccadilly. If direct services are running late just skip the scheduled stop to make up some lost time. Conversely, the increased number of services (above TSR quantum) will make up for the inconvenience.

I'm not sure where you've got the 18 minutes from, but without any timing allowances it should be 12.5 minutes. The XX:47 Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough services do it in 16, for example. To be fair, what those additional 3.5 minutes of pathing time shows that it is impossible to run truly "express" services on such a congested route. It is pretty easy to add in additional stops (1-2) without changing the overall end-to-end journey times.

 

[Wtloild]

From a cursory look at the Bolton line, the post-electrification changes are:

• Current Victoria - Buckshaw Parkway service becomes Vic - Preston
• Current Blackpool North - Piccadilly service becomes Blackpool North - Hazel Grove (with one morning peak northbound service from Stoke instead)
• Current Manchester Airport - Preston/Barrow service becomes Airport - Blackpool North

These services are mostly timed for 100mph 319s. Times at Bolton are unchanged, within a minute or two.

On the WCML, the current Airport - Blackpool North EMU service becomes Airport - Barrow/Windermere DMU. Windermere gets 4tpd, Barrow 10tpd. Mostly timed for 90mph 158s, but some for 75mph Sprinters. Times at Wigan North Western are mostly unchanged, within a minute or two.

As this is pretty much the timetable originally planned for May 2018, it rather gives the lie to Northern's claim that the electrification delay caused a complete rewrite. Essentially what was done was to curtail or split some services, and swap Blackpool and Lancaster services between the Bolton and Wigan routes.

Notice the ManVic-Preston trains all terminate at platform 1 at Preston.
Is there any reason why they don't use the bays?
Can sort of understand the Ormskirk trains using 1/2 seeing they're bearing off right a few miles down the line, but having Manchester trains cross right over to that side and then wait there seems a bit inefficient & risky, especially with through York-Blackpool trains being reinstated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Notice the ManVic-Preston trains all terminate at platform 1 at Preston.
Is there any reason why they don't use the bays?
Can sort of understand the Ormskirk trains using 1/2 seeing they're bearing off right a few miles down the line, but having Manchester trains cross right over to that side and then wait there seems a bit inefficient & risky, especially with through York-Blackpool trains being reinstated.

The bays are miles away from where anyone wants to go! They are avoided for reasons of good customer service.