Northern timetable plan for May 2018

[Shaw S Hunter]

Liverpool's the 5th largest city in the UK (unless you use an illogical method of working out population e.g. trying to claim the population of Wigan counts towards Manchester's population.)

Actually a pointless argument as we do not have a universally agreed definition in this country for what exactly constitutes a "city". Government departments tend to use Primary Urban Areas (which ranks the top 5 as LDN, BHM, MAN, LPL, LDS) whereas the EU uses Larger Urban Zones (LDS above LPL). The Office for National Statistics however prefers Urban Area Agglomerations (rank: LDN, MAN, BHM, LDS, LPL).

Traditionalists will stick to the strict municipal boundaries which gives a rather arbitrary picture, particularly for Manchester as it will separate the various districts even though much of Salford and Trafford districts (for example) are part of Manchester to all intents and purposes. [/OT]

 

[Camden]

Get the point, but I can't imagine too many folk do that journey fully.

But if so, you'd definitely be better off going via London - mainly because the Liverpool-Brum trains are semi-fast at best. Which yes, is a bit rubbish.

End to end, I expect there may be more than you imagine with each place being a significant draw although at the moment you would need patience and a tough derriere. Yes though the majority of journeys will be intermediate, Sheffield to Liverpool, Nottingham to Sheffield, Norwich to Peterborough, etc.

Regarding this sort of end to end journey, though, given the congestion of routes into London, the extra distance involved in travelling via London, and how places in our country are separated from one another by lack of sensible connectivity, I think there is every reason to do our best to improve these links rather than just say how it's faster to go via London.

Cambridge to Liverpool sounds like a solid, sensible, normal journey that probably would be an option if we were another country. Today it would take about 5 to 6 hours, but shouldn't we be aiming to get that down to 3 direct?

 

[YorkshireBear]

End to end, I expect there may be more than you imagine with each place being a significant draw although at the moment you would need patience and a tough derriere. Yes though the majority of journeys will be intermediate, Sheffield to Liverpool, Nottingham to Sheffield, Norwich to Peterborough, etc.

Regarding this sort of end to end journey, though, given the congestion of routes into London, the extra distance involved in travelling via London, and how places in our country are separated from one another by lack of sensible connectivity, I think there is every reason to do our best to improve these links rather than just say how it's faster to go via London.

Cambridge to Liverpool sounds like a solid, sensible, normal journey that probably would be an option if we were another country. Today it would take about 5 to 6 hours, but shouldn't we be aiming to get that down to 3 direct?

I agree. (Ignoring the exact detail of liverpool cambridge in 3 hours), you are quite right that we should be aiming to achieve much better journey times East to West across the country. Sending everyone via London makes the capacity problem into London much worse and making us spend money where it costs more.

Transpennine is the start of a drive to improve this, but i want to see these links further north (Newcastle - Carlisle) and South through the midlands also improved

 

[lejog]

Thanks for this, that's in line with the franchise requirement of 9 services after 10pm, up from the current 3. There seem to have been a number of threads and hijacked threads complaining about late night services to Wakefield recently, where any mention that these improvements were due was ignored. When the complaint came up again in this thread it nearly did my head in.

Neither the public franchise consultation, nor the DfT's website made any mention of a later service to Normanton, so this is indeed fresh and welcome news.

This is not "fresh" news at all and please stop representing it as such. The details of later services to Normanton may not have appeared in the public consultation, but this has been on gov.uk for over a year now, as a contractual requirement for the new franchise. Franchise Agreement Train Specs Weekdays Dec 2017 published 19th February 2016.

Normanton. Last service departs Leeds no earlier than 23:00

The increase in post 10pm Wakefield services from 3 to 9 is also described there. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I am reminded of the "You can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much ..." line.

 

[IanXC]

I have deleted a number of posts for being off topic. Can I request that members reacquaint themselves with the title of this thread and post accordingly. Many thanks.

 

[WatcherZero]

TfGM feeling on proposed Northern timetable.

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/2085/item_23_may_2018_rail_timetable

 

[yorksrob]

This is not "fresh" news at all and please stop representing it as such. The details of later services to Normanton may not have appeared in the public consultation, but this has been on gov.uk for over a year now, as a contractual requirement for the new franchise. Franchise Agreement Train Specs Weekdays Dec 2017 published 19th February 2016.



The increase in post 10pm Wakefield services from 3 to 9 is also described there. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I am reminded of the "You can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much ..." line.

Call me old fashioned, but as an interested local resident, I might be expected to read and digest the public consultation. I'm not sure that the general public are expected to read through the minutae of all franchising documentation. Perhaps we are now !

 

[northwichcat]

TfGM feeling on proposed Northern timetable.

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/2085/item_23_may_2018_rail_timetable

I see they think the service from local stations on the Huddersfield line going in to Piccadilly is a concern, despite most passengers saying they were happy with that change in a Network Rail consultation. Also a concern about the reduction in the number of services between Ashton and Manchester - are they accepting some passengers prefer trains over the slow yellow things?

I also don't see why faster journey times to Chester on the Mid-Cheshire is seen as 'an additional gain' when it's a franchise requirement for faster off-peak services.

 

[Starmill]

Well going down from 3 to 2 peak tph also impacts any Metrolink passengers travelling to Stalybridge, Mossley or Greenfield

In more serious terms I think its a shame 3tph can't be provided all day, as it used to be.

I am glad TfGM have identified the problem with the 'directionally imbalanced' pattern of Hazel Grove <> Manchester services.

 

[Philip]

Be interesting to see how they allocate the 195s over such a great number of different routes, especially at peak times. Will most of the 2-coach units double up in peak to form 4? Are there likely to be many 6-coach formations? Some services will have to be formed of only a single 2-coach set, so it'll be interesting to see which ones these will be. I'm expecting the Manchester Airport Northern Connect services to probably get preferential treatment with 3-coaches or more normally deployed.

 

[northwichcat]

Well going down from 3 to 2 peak tph also impacts any Metrolink passengers travelling to Stalybridge, Mossley or Greenfield

In more serious terms I think its a shame 3tph can't be provided all day, as it used to be.

I am glad TfGM have identified the problem with the 'directionally imbalanced' pattern of Hazel Grove <> Manchester services.

How many passengers change between Metrolink and rail at Ashton? I get the impression most change in the city centre where there are more and better connections than at Ashton. Connections to Salford Quays will be a lot easier once trains are diverted in to Piccadilly.

 

[trickyvegas]

How many passengers change between Metrolink and rail at Ashton? I get the impression most change in the city centre where there are more and better connections than at Ashton. Connections to Salford Quays will be a lot easier once trains are diverted in to Piccadilly.

I don't think it's considered an interchange from a fares point of view. If I bought a Stalybridge - Audenshaw ticket, I'd be expected to travel via Piccadilly

 

[yorksrob]

In 'Rail Magazine' Barry Doe seemed to suggest that Arriva are proposing a cut in frequency on the Settle Carlisle. Is this correct ?

 

[30907]

In 'Rail Magazine' Barry Doe seemed to suggest that Arriva are proposing a cut in frequency on the Settle Carlisle. Is this correct ?

Posts #79 and following suggest the opposite - unless Arriva are saying the draft there is overambitious?

 

[yorksrob]

Posts #79 and following suggest the opposite - unless Arriva are saying the draft there is overambitious?

Ah thanks. It did seem strange when I read it since the Lancaster service is clearly being considered for improvements, however it's difficult to tell when the consultation itself isn't public.

 

[Greybeard33]

I am glad TfGM have identified the problem with the 'directionally imbalanced' pattern of Hazel Grove <> Manchester services.

I presume "directionally imbalanced service pattern" means that the Buxton service will be all stations to Hazel Grove outbound, whereas the New Mills Newtown service will be all stations from Hazel Grove inbound? Why is this a problem (TfGM only calls it a concern)?

I do not know the details of the constraints, but I imagine the service pattern is dictated by the paths available between Piccadilly and Hazel Grove amongst the TPE/EMT/VTWC/XC/ATW fast services, with Edgeley Jn being a particular bottleneck.

The Buxton service is already "directionally imbalanced" today, calling at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel outbound but not inbound, with the Chester service picking up those calls inbound. This arrangement minimises the conflicts at Edgeley Jn, with the outbound Chester service using the Up Fast, through Stockport Platform 2.

While the proposed service pattern is not ideal, New Mills Newtown and Hazel Grove will both get an extra hourly train to/from Manchester, with the extra in each direction being faster. Stations from Buxton to Furness Vale will get a faster outbound service from Manchester (no longer calling at Disley), and an even faster inbound service (no longer calling at Disley, Woodsmoor or Davenport). Disley will get a faster outbound service.

Surely that is a worthwhile improvement, if the alternative is to stay with a 1tph all stations service between Hazel Grove and Buxton?

 

[northwichcat]

I presume "directionally imbalanced service pattern" means that the Buxton service will be all stations to Hazel Grove outbound, whereas the New Mills Newtown service will be all stations from Hazel Grove inbound? Why is this a problem (TfGM only calls it a concern)?

In some ways a 'directionally imbalanced service' can better than a 'balanced service'. A 'balanced service' might mean some passengers have to change in both directions, whereas a 'imbalanced service' means they only have to change in one direction.

 

[Starmill]

Commercially I would say the main reason it's a problem is because it means that there's no journey time improvement for services to Buxton. So anyone doing Manchester or Stockport to Furness Vale, Whaley Bridge or Buxton is getting no frequency increase and no journey time improvement.

I don't know why TfGM are concerned exactly. Improving a service in one direction but not the other is a bit of a waste of time, unless there are lots of people who may travel by train but only one way, which seems very unlikely.

It also makes the service very unmemorable and is more likely to cause confusion for irregular users.

But the biggest reason it's a problem (and perhaps this is what TfGM mean) is because of the practical concern. If you are going to run a train only as far as New Mills Newtown and only call at Stockport, Hazel Grove and Disley then that train isn't going to be particularly full. Even at peak time. I have explained at length how New Mills Central offers better opportunities for developing the service than Newtown. By contrast, the Buxton trains will be bursting at the seams even as a 4 car owing to the need to serve every station between Manchester and Hazel Grove and all of the Buxton line passengers who have no alternatives.

I think I've made my views clear that it would help much more in terms of pathing if we didn't have diesel trains calling at Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel, Davenport and Woodsmoor at all.

The service is better - of course it's better. It will use more resources in terms of train units and crew. But the marginal cost of running an extra diesel train and employing the extra driver and guard are high. This plan makes poor use of them. Anyway hopefully there is some scope for change and compromise before this timetable comes into force yet.

 

[Greybeard33]

Commercially I would say the main reason it's a problem is because it means that there's no journey time improvement for services to Buxton. So anyone doing Manchester or Stockport to Furness Vale, Whaley Bridge or Buxton is getting no frequency increase and no journey time improvement.

I don't know why TfGM are concerned exactly. Improving a service in one direction but not the other is a bit of a waste of time, unless there are lots of people who may travel by train but only one way, which seems very unlikely.

It also makes the service very unmemorable and is more likely to cause confusion for irregular users.

But the biggest reason it's a problem (and perhaps this is what TfGM mean) is because of the practical concern. If you are going to run a train only as far as New Mills Newtown and only call at Stockport, Hazel Grove and Disley then that train isn't going to be particularly full. Even at peak time. I have explained at length how New Mills Central offers better opportunities for developing the service than Newtown. By contrast, the Buxton trains will be bursting at the seams even as a 4 car owing to the need to serve every station between Manchester and Hazel Grove and all of the Buxton line passengers who have no alternatives.

I think I've made my views clear that it would help much more in terms of pathing if we didn't have diesel trains calling at Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel, Davenport and Woodsmoor at all.

The service is better - of course it's better. It will use more resources in terms of train units and crew. But the marginal cost of running an extra diesel train and employing the extra driver and guard are high. This plan makes poor use of them. Anyway hopefully there is some scope for change and compromise before this timetable comes into force yet.

Skipping Disley should improve journey times from Manchester/Stockport to Furness Vale, Whaley Bridge and Buxton by a couple of minutes. And currently alternate services call at Middlewood, which adds a further two minutes. Reportedly the New Mills Newtown service will take over those calls too.

The TSR requirement is for 2tph all the way to Buxton in the peaks, as now, with the New Mills Newtown service off peak only. I have not seen any previous suggestion in this thread that the peak requirement will not be implemented. Off peak Buxton services are hardly overcrowded now even when 2-car.

The only Northern electric services from Piccadilly to Stockport that will not call at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel are those to Macclesfield and Stoke. Thomas6187 and Ianno87 have explained why they need to run fast to Stockport, in Posts #38 and #160 respectively. Within the pathing constraints, presumably the Buxton service is able to provide the required 4th hourly southbound service to those two stations with the least irregular service intervals.

I see that the Northern franchise agreement TSRs have recently been updated on the
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-rail-2016-rail-franchise-agreement website - the PDFs are now dated 07 June 2017. However, I have not yet noticed any changes from the original versions.

 

[Starmill]

Those notions are not set in stone - I find it difficult to believe that when you add it all up there is no way to remove some of these calls from services to Buxton. Even if only Davenport and Woodsmoor can be swapped. Anyway as I say we'll have to see if they can take the advice on and mitigate it.

Anyway to attract more passengers to the service from Buxton this is probably counter-productive. If the journey goes down from 63ish to 52ish minutes in one direction but not the other it will show potential customers what is possible but not being delivered.

I personally don't think the period when there are 2tph to Buxton covers the whole of the time when Buxton services are busy. There are currently quite a number of peak services which do not make the calls too. None of this changes the fact that peak services that only call at Hazel Grove, Disley and New Mills Newtown will not be very well filled.

It's entirely in their own interest to produce a service pattern which actually benefits the Buxton line all day, because there is no other way they will increase revenue to offset the higher cost of more trains and crews (which we are told must all be paid for by the passenger, and not through subsidy).

In the long term, if a route or station is not on offer at at least half-hourly because there is not enough demand for it (rather than because it is too difficult to supply - so the Cumbrian Coast for example could never really have a half hourly service, but Barrow to Lancaster could and should) then really we need to be asking ourselves if keeping that station open is truly viable.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Those notions are not set in stone - I find it difficult to believe that when you add it all up there is no way to remove some of these calls from services to Buxton. Even if only Davenport and Woodsmoor can be swapped. Anyway as I say we'll have to see if they can take the advice on and mitigate it.

Anyway to attract more passengers to the service from Buxton this is probably counter-productive. If the journey goes down from 63ish to 52ish minutes in one direction but not the other it will show potential customers what is possible but not being delivered.

I personally don't think the period when there are 2tph to Buxton covers the whole of the time when Buxton services are busy. There are currently quite a number of peak services which do not make the calls too. None of this changes the fact that peak services that only call at Hazel Grove, Disley and New Mills Newtown will not be very well filled.

It's entirely in their own interest to produce a service pattern which actually benefits the Buxton line all day, because there is no other way they will increase revenue to offset the higher cost of more trains and crews (which we are told must all be paid for by the passenger, and not through subsidy).

In the long term, if a route or station is not on offer at at least half-hourly because there is not enough demand for it (rather than because it is too difficult to supply - so the Cumbrian Coast for example could never really have a half hourly service, but Barrow to Lancaster could and should) then really we need to be asking ourselves if keeping that station open is truly viable.

It requires little thought to answer that question: there is undoubtedly a number of stations around the network whose lack of true viability is surely a drain on the railway's finances and therefore should be closed. But of course the political reaction to the Settle-Carlisle saga of the 1980s means it is now so difficult to close a station, never mind a route, that we carry on serving them, sometimes with utterly laughable "parliamentary" services.

As for your other comments they demonstrate that a slightly crayonista approach to timetable planning soon exposes the constraints imposed by running a network so close to its maximum capacity at too many pinch points, some of which are relatively close together. I don't think it will be too many years of running the post-Ordsall chord timetables that we realise the need to sort out the constraints at some or all of Ordsall Lane Jn, Slade Lane Jn and Edgeley Jns. If we took the Dutch approach we would surely have already accepted the need for many more grade-separated junctions all over the country.

 

[northwichcat]

Anyway to attract more passengers to the service from Buxton this is probably counter-productive. If the journey goes down from 63ish to 52ish minutes in one direction but not the other it will show potential customers what is possible but not being delivered.

Journey times are rarely consistent in both directions anyway. The 07:48 Buxton to Manchester takes 51 minutes to reach Manchester while the 17:22 Manchester to Buxton takes 55 minutes - both services only call at Stockport between Manchester and Hazel Grove and both miss out Dove Holes and Middlewood.

I personally don't think the period when there are 2tph to Buxton covers the whole of the time when Buxton services are busy.

The same can be said about most lines.

 

[northwichcat]

In the long term, if a route or station is not on offer at at least half-hourly because there is not enough demand for it (rather than because it is too difficult to supply - so the Cumbrian Coast for example could never really have a half hourly service, but Barrow to Lancaster could and should) then really we need to be asking ourselves if keeping that station open is truly viable.

Keeping an unstaffed station open on a well utilised line is a different scenario from a line where all stations have poor usage.

It's also worth noting Dr Beeching proposed closing the Warrington to Chester line and if that closure had done ahead it wouldn't have been possible to create a station on an existing line to serve the Halton Lea development in Runcorn and Metrolink to Altrincham would probably have been a non-starter.

 

[northwichcat]

I see that the Northern franchise agreement TSRs have recently been updated on the
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-rail-2016-rail-franchise-agreement website - the PDFs are now dated 07 June 2017. However, I have not yet noticed any changes from the original versions.

All that's changed is the documents are now downloaded as pdfs in one zip folder, rather than as individual documents.

 

[Starmill]

As for your other comments they demonstrate that a slightly crayonista approach to timetable planning soon exposes the constraints imposed by running a network so close to its maximum capacity at too many pinch points, some of which are relatively close together. I don't think it will be too many years of running the post-Ordsall chord timetables that we realise the need to sort out the constraints at some or all of Ordsall Lane Jn, Slade Lane Jn and Edgeley Jns. If we took the Dutch approach we would surely have already accepted the need for many more grade-separated junctions all over the country.

What a load of nonsense.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to revatilise local services in one big go, and to reinvent the economics of running a railway. I absolutely agree that we could and should run railways for social benefit but generally we're told on here that this argument is futile and we must run railways in a way that pays for them instead. The best way to do that is to attract more people to the service. You do this by following the central principles that a timetable should be consistent and memorable, gaps between services as even as possible and generally better than hourly, and that of there's a semi-fast service it is the one that continues the furthest. This is successfully repeated literally all over the country.

Furthermore, if my approach is one of 'crayonista' then so is TfGM's who clearly agree with me, and so is the DfT, who specified 4tph from Hazel Grove to Manchester and apparently that's now too difficult to achieve in the short term. We have this backwards idea in this country that we will just run whatever service we have the infrastructure for, when in reality the only way to manage the economy in the long term is to decide on the timetable output that will be profitable and carry the most people and then come up with the money for the infrastructure to support that. I want to see the railway grow and develop. The way to do this is not to massively hike fares (as Hazel Grove - Manchester has seen) and then introduce a backward timetable, before wondering why there hasn't been as much growth as was predicted.

 

[northwichcat]

DfT specified 3tph to Hazel Grove. Arriva included 4tph in their bid, partly so trains to/from Hazel Grove could be roughly every 15 minutes rather than 3tph but a roughly 30 minute gap between 2 services. It seems Arriva haven't been able to find a path for the additional service they included in their bid.

 

[Jamesrob637]

So finally end of 2018 some air conditioning on the South Manchester locals which residents of Heaton, Levenshulme et al shall welcome especially on days like today!

 

[Greybeard33]

I personally don't think the period when there are 2tph to Buxton covers the whole of the time when Buxton services are busy. There are currently quite a number of peak services which do not make the calls too. None of this changes the fact that peak services that only call at Hazel Grove, Disley and New Mills Newtown will not be very well filled.

It's entirely in their own interest to produce a service pattern which actually benefits the Buxton line all day, because there is no other way they will increase revenue to offset the higher cost of more trains and crews (which we are told must all be paid for by the passenger, and not through subsidy).

The Dec 2017 (now May 2018) TSR specifies that, between 07:00 and 09:59, Buxton, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Whaley Bridge, Furness Vale, New Mills Newtown, Disley and Middleton must all get 5 services to Manchester (Dove Holes 3). Between 16:00 and 18:59, all those stations must get 6 services from Manchester, except Middleton and Dove Holes 3. So where are the peak services that you say will only call at Hazel Grove, Disley and New Mills Newtown?

To run the second hourly service to Buxton all day would require an extra train and crew, compared with terminating it at New Mills Newtown. So it would only be of financial benefit if the additional revenue raised was greater than the marginal cost of running that extra train. Northern has presumably done the sums and come to a negative conclusion.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to revatilise local services in one big go, and to reinvent the economics of running a railway. I absolutely agree that we could and should run railways for social benefit but generally we're told on here that this argument is futile and we must run railways in a way that pays for them instead. The best way to do that is to attract more people to the service. You do this by following the central principles that a timetable should be consistent and memorable, gaps between services as even as possible and generally better than hourly, and that of there's a semi-fast service it is the one that continues the furthest. This is successfully repeated literally all over the country.

Furthermore, if my approach is one of 'crayonista' then so is TfGM's who clearly agree with me, and so is the DfT, who specified 4tph from Hazel Grove to Manchester and apparently that's now too difficult to achieve in the short term. We have this backwards idea in this country that we will just run whatever service we have the infrastructure for, when in reality the only way to manage the economy in the long term is to decide on the timetable output that will be profitable and carry the most people and then come up with the money for the infrastructure to support that. I want to see the railway grow and develop. The way to do this is not to massively hike fares (as Hazel Grove - Manchester has seen) and then introduce a backward timetable, before wondering why there hasn't been as much growth as was predicted.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the scope of the May 2018 changes does not extend to a wholesale recast of the entire WCML timetable to accommodate improved South Manchester local services. The three additional hourly off peak Northern services between Piccadilly and Stockport make use of new paths in/out of Piccadilly, which will be made available by diverting the TPE Liverpool to Scarborough, Airport to Middlesbrough and Airport to York/Newcastle services that currently cross Piccadilly station throat. However, the Northern services' paths still have to mesh with those of the 8tph of long distance services through Stockport, which will be little changed. The substantial investment in the Ordsall Chord has made these limited improvements possible, but considerably more infrastructure investment would be needed to achieve the higher frequency, clockface timetable I am sure we would all ideally like to see.

But surely half a loaf is better than none?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What a load of nonsense.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to revatilise local services in one big go, and to reinvent the economics of running a railway. I absolutely agree that we could and should run railways for social benefit but generally we're told on here that this argument is futile and we must run railways in a way that pays for them instead. The best way to do that is to attract more people to the service. You do this by following the central principles that a timetable should be consistent and memorable, gaps between services as even as possible and generally better than hourly, and that of there's a semi-fast service it is the one that continues the furthest. This is successfully repeated literally all over the country.

Furthermore, if my approach is one of 'crayonista' then so is TfGM's who clearly agree with me, and so is the DfT, who specified 4tph from Hazel Grove to Manchester and apparently that's now too difficult to achieve in the short term. We have this backwards idea in this country that we will just run whatever service we have the infrastructure for, when in reality the only way to manage the economy in the long term is to decide on the timetable output that will be profitable and carry the most people and then come up with the money for the infrastructure to support that. I want to see the railway grow and develop. The way to do this is not to massively hike fares (as Hazel Grove - Manchester has seen) and then introduce a backward timetable, before wondering why there hasn't been as much growth as was predicted.

Not sure why you consider my comments to be nonsense, we're in broad agreement! And my use of the word "crayonista" in relation to this subject was not intended to be critical; the better European railways take the same approach and it even persuaded the Swiss to build a new (and quite short) high speed line in order that they could introduce an improved frequency across much of the country while staying true to the principles of a Taktfahrplan.

And this poster seems also to be in agreement:

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the scope of the May 2018 changes does not extend to a wholesale recast of the entire WCML timetable to accommodate improved South Manchester local services. The three additional hourly off peak Northern services between Piccadilly and Stockport make use of new paths in/out of Piccadilly, which will be made available by diverting the TPE Liverpool to Scarborough, Airport to Middlesbrough and Airport to York/Newcastle services that currently cross Piccadilly station throat. However, the Northern services' paths still have to mesh with those of the 8tph of long distance services through Stockport, which will be little changed. The substantial investment in the Ordsall Chord has made these limited improvements possible, but considerably more infrastructure investment would be needed to achieve the higher frequency, clockface timetable I am sure we would all ideally like to see.

But surely half a loaf is better than none?

Even though the Southport and Westhoughton lines are going to end up with services that don't really offer much of an improvement I can see that certain compromises have to be made to provide as much as possible to as many as possible within the known constraints. So glass half full or half empty? It's worth remembering that right now securing expanded train fleets is much easier than getting approval for significant railway infrastructure upgrades.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the scope of the May 2018 changes does not extend to a wholesale recast of the entire WCML timetable to accommodate improved South Manchester local services. The three additional hourly off peak Northern services between Piccadilly and Stockport make use of new paths in/out of Piccadilly, which will be made available by diverting the TPE Liverpool to Scarborough, Airport to Middlesbrough and Airport to York/Newcastle services that currently cross Piccadilly station throat. However, the Northern services' paths still have to mesh with those of the 8tph of long distance services through Stockport, which will be little changed. The substantial investment in the Ordsall Chord has made these limited improvements possible, but considerably more infrastructure investment would be needed to achieve the higher frequency, clockface timetable I am sure we would all ideally like to see.
But surely half a loaf is better than none?

There should be more capacity when the Piccadilly/Oxford Road station improvements come in (that's assuming they ever do).
So this might not be the "once only" opportunity to increase services.
Looking even further ahead, London/Birmingham services will mainly get diverted into Manchester via HS2b when it is built.