Northern's Problems in the North West

[B&I]

I don't doubt that the staffing issues are adding to the problem, but they are far from the only factor here. The fact that you have two TOCs with major recasts of timetables, one (TPE) where there is a significant learning curve with drivers having to learn new stopping points in units & services that have very rarely (if ever) stopped there causing other faster services to trip over them, leading to a TPE procession through the Manchester stations. So what on the face of it might be described as a rotation problem, might actually be because crews are stuck waiting for the TPEs to get by before they can reach the changing point. Whilst perhaps they should have planned for this, Northern's planners probably didn't anticipate such delays as have been seen across the North TP.

However had the Piccadilly expansion for P15-16 been allowed to go ahead at the same time as the Ordsall Chord, there would have been spare platform capacity there to soak up at least some of these problems meaning not as many Northern units would be sat at Oxford Road waiting for the crews. There was a similar problem years ago at Leeds when capacity ran out & a very limited set of pathing options were available through the Leeds West junctions. The result? Exactly what we are seeing in Manchester today, crews unable to reach services due to depart, which then meant that platforms were not available to services waiting outside and chaos regularly ensued. Only when the station was re-designed & the junctions improved to increase capacity did the problem die down, although if the truth be know Leeds is once again getting close to the same situation again.

So what I am trying to say is that although the staffing should have allowed for more flexibility, and/or allow crews to work through Manchester, what is really needed is all the promised infrastructural improvements that DfT have been waiving in front of passengers. But instead, in typical UK public sector fashion they've gone for the cheap 'n' cheerful solution, add a cross-Manchester route, allow more paths & hope it doesn't fall apart. Northern have not covered themselves in glory, that's for sure. But the DfT are at the heart of all this chaos, and incapable and unwilling to commit to what all of the North of England needs.

It is notable that boiled egg features has kept silent on Northern in his comments to the media. Less scope for shifting blame than with the situation down south ?

 

[Bantamzen]

It is notable that boiled egg features has kept silent on Northern in his comments to the media. Less scope for shifting blame than with the situation down south ?

He's probably trying to figure out how bi-modes & the over-use of the word "digital" can be used to look like he's fixing the problem.....

 

[nw-sparks]

I notice in the overnight updates that in next week's Chat Moss timetable (Huyton / Manchester Victoria) they've just deleted half the trains.

First hints of an "emergency timetable"!

 

[Bantamzen]

I notice in the overnight updates that in next week's Chat Moss timetable (Huyton / Manchester Victoria) they've just deleted half the trains.

First hints of an "emergency timetable"!

Won't this be for the Liverpool LS blockade rather than an emergency timetable, although by proxy it will act as such?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I notice in the overnight updates that in next week's Chat Moss timetable (Huyton / Manchester Victoria) they've just deleted half the trains.
First hints of an "emergency timetable"!

They seem to reappear in the following week (when Lime St reopens with a limited service).

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think the moronic my grayling pinning all the blame on Network Rail is harsh. Trains abandoned in Oxford road due to lack of driver is nothing to do with them and is a not insignificant part of the problem.

Industry problem and the industry needs to form a united front to increase passengers confidence not have the DfT just enjoying a bit of blame culture, which has repeatedly proven to make businesses perform more poorly.

 

[underbank]

Not so much the DfT as local politicians representing, you know, local people. Such links are designed to improve the mobility of labour (try Bolton to Stockport without a through service) which helps with economic growth.

But there are dozens of journeys taken by commuters that don't have direct train links. Take Morecambe <> Kendal or Morecambe <> Barrow/Ulverston. These are real commuting routes done by loads of people (I know I used to live in Morecambe and have worked in both Kendal and Ulverston (also Windermere) alongside lots of others doing the same journey). But they're simply not viable by train due to no direct trains meaning having to change and spending most of the time stood staring at railway stations waiting for connections. Why is Bolton to Stockport so special it needs a direct train? These direct trains are fine for the few who benefit, but they mean you can't have a useful clockface timetable. Morecambe<>Lancaster, Windermere<>Kendal<>Oxenholme and Lancaster<>Barrow routes would be far more useful to locals if they had clockface shuttle trains instead of the longer distance. We seem to prioritising the needs of the vociferous few who want longer direct routes against locals who want regular services between nearby towns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, if the pressure has come from local, presumably Manchester, politicians, perhaps it would help if they had paid any attention to local heavy rail development for the past 30 years, rather than pretending that the entire region's transport needs can be met with trams.

To be fair, more trams would remove more trains from the overused infrastructure and thus improve reliability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the moronic my grayling pinning all the blame on Network Rail is harsh. Trains abandoned in Oxford road due to lack of driver is nothing to do with them and is a not insignificant part of the problem.

This is a fair point. Logic would say that if Northern are going to have these cross-city services they need to change their staff training programme such that a single traincrew can operate them throughout.

Can you *imagine* GTR having staff swapping over at City Thameslink or Farringdon? It's that ridiculous.

GTR are simplifying their network to gain throughput, punctuality and reliability - and Northern and TfN are insistent on doing the opposite. Are they living in the past?

Simple networks, perfect clockface timetables (like the Ormskirk circuit is doing - precisely hourly for the full period of service) and quality connections are the future. And Picc P15/16 are needed now.

 

[nw-sparks]

They seem to reappear in the following week (when Lime St reopens with a limited service).

Perhaps they'll be deleted next week!

 

[northwichcat]

To be fair, more trams would remove more trains from the overused infrastructure and thus improve reliability.

Not by the Metrolink method of converting train lines. It means there's fewer routes available to freight and routes with only 1 passenger train per hour can end up not having capacity for a second passenger train due to the amount of freight use on the line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I applaud you for your professional loyalty though. I'm not sure I could display such misplaced commitment to an employer or industry that is in disarray.

In my experience it is rather unusual for traincrew to display such loyalty, too - their loyalty is generally to the railway and the passengers, not to whatever company might be botching it up this week.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not by the Metrolink method of converting train lines. It means there's fewer routes available to freight and routes with only 1 passenger train per hour can end up not having capacity for a second passenger train due to the amount of freight use on the line.

If you're going on about your local line, there is no case whatsoever for any more than 2tph, which you are getting (may already have, subject to them being bothered to actually run it). Max the train lengths out first. Its also not the only way from Manchester to Chester, there's also the route via Earlestown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However had the Piccadilly expansion for P15-16 been allowed to go ahead at the same time as the Ordsall Chord, there would have been spare platform capacity there to soak up at least some of these problems meaning not as many Northern units would be sat at Oxford Road waiting for the crews.

I'd go further - as I said, if only one of the two projects was affordable, they picked the wrong one. P15/16[1] would have solved a problem that's been a problem for years. The Ordsall Chord made it worse - much worse - by adding more trains to a line that was already full.

[1] Or a cheaper variant, e.g. an "overtaking" line on each side to allow 13a/b and 14a/b to be operated independently in the manner of platform 3 at Chester. In some ways better due to removing running over the bridge for platform alterations, but I suppose with longer trains in the future a bit less future-proof.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He's probably trying to figure out how bi-modes & the over-use of the word "digital" can be used to look like he's fixing the problem.....

"Digital" is nothing new, it's just computerisation. It seems to be a current fad-term, but to me it echoes back to the 1980s and digital watches

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they're simply not viable by train due to no direct trains meaning having to change and spending most of the time stood staring at railway stations waiting for connections.

That is because the UK can't be bothered to design a proper connectional Taktfahrplan. We do increasingly do clockface, but it's only part of the story. A proper Taktfahrplan requires:
- Design the connections people will want in from day one.
- Build the infrastructure for the connections. It requires a large number of platforms at the interchange station, because once or twice an hour you'll need them all. Lancaster would actually serve the purpose quite well as it has the through platforms and effectively three bays, so would make a good hub for a Lakes, Furness, Morecambe and the Bentham Line, though you might want to resignal the "spare" through platform so as to be able to take two trains.
- Build for capacity - if you need 2x20m now, still build for 8x20m/6x23m - when you do it well, it's a case of build it and they will come.
- Build in enough layover time so the connections on the branches can wait for the mainlines, but recover at the other end so the mainlines don't ever have to wait for the branches. (Branches are typically very punctual - it usually either runs on time or is cancelled). As an extension of that, traincrews stay on the branches so they aren't affected by knock-on delays elsewhere, breaking the system.

It is not the proverbial rocket science. It is the way it should be done.

People commute by way of the Tube (and Merseyrail and the likes) with multiple connections without even thinking about it, because the connections are easy. That works because of high frequencies rather than Takt, but you're never going to have 30tph on the Windermere branch - so planning things so it *feels* like 30tph is the way to do it.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'd go further - as I said, if only one of the two projects was affordable, they picked the wrong one. P15/16[1] would have solved a problem that's been a problem for years. The Ordsall Chord made it worse - much worse - by adding more trains to a line that was already full.

[1] Or a cheaper variant, e.g. an "overtaking" line on each side to allow 13a/b and 14a/b to be operated independently in the manner of platform 3 at Chester. In some ways better due to removing running over the bridge for platform alterations, but I suppose with longer trains in the future a bit less future-proof.

That might be an option, but aside the cost of additional platforms / access etc, would it be significantly cheaper as it would still need a similar footprint would it not?

"Digital" is nothing new, it's just computerisation. It seems to be a current fad-term, but to me it echoes back to the 1980s and digital watches

Oh I know what digital really is, but I also know how digital is interpreted in the public sector. Trust me when I tell you that the two are very different, as a developer digital means automating processes, building new IT solutions, making customer access available online etc. However some senior and middle managers think that digital means using the word as often as possible (sometimes supplemented by the word "whizzy"), having thousands of telekits & PowerPoint presentations & occasionally congratulating themselves on a job well done. Only when things go pointy bits up do they ask people like me my they don't have an actual solution, and can we do it by this time last week.....

(Not that I'm being cynical, honest guv!! )

 

[Moonshot]

Why is is that when some major issue comes up on the railway that loads post with what should have been done prior.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That might be an option, but aside the cost of additional platforms / access etc, would it be significantly cheaper as it would still need a similar footprint would it not?

I think it might well be cheaper as it would only require widening the bridge on the offside by the proverbial two horses' backsides, while on the nearside it could feed into the line going to P12 (which isn't used heavily) and so a bridge would only be needed at the west end rather than for the full length. Also no need for the new platform and facilities.

 

[47802]

According to the Blackpool Gazette, Blackpool Transport replacement buses are now contracted until at least the 24th June, one suspects they will be needed a lot longer than that the way things are going

 

[northwichcat]

If you're going on about your local line, there is no case whatsoever for any more than 2tph, which you are getting (may already have, subject to them being bothered to actually run it). Max the train lengths out first. Its also not the only way from Manchester to Chester, there's also the route via Earlestown.

I'm not going on about my local line, I'm talking about the Manchester area in general. The more Metrolink conversions there are the fewer routes available for freight to use. If it wasn't for Metrolink there would be more alternatives to sending long freight trains through the Piccadilly platform 13/14 bottleneck.

However, I see you persist with your usual rubbish about longer trains running to low frequencies. It's one thing saying that if there's already 4tph - going from a 15 minute frequency to a 12 minute frequency won't win over passengers but when it's 1tph or 2tph the enhanced frequency almost certainly will win over extra passengers. Think about it - if you need to make a journey involving a change and both lines you need to use have a half-hourly service then you could end up with a 10 minute journey on the first train, a 25 minute connection time and then a 20 minute journey on the second train (55 minutes total) but if both lines have 15 minute frequencies it becomes something more like 40 minutes total. If you make a return journey every day that's freeing up 2.5 hours of travelling time every week and if you don't currently use the train 40 minutes is more likely to be competitive with the road than 55 minutes.

 

[Howardh]

Next week (Thurs) I've got to get from Bolton to the airport, leaving at 9.45am. Can't leave any earlier as that's when the carers for mum arrive and I've a 12-hour respite block. Flight is 12.35. Under normal circumstances not a problem.

However the current shambles has me searching round for alternatives. Bolton is badly served by buses - there are no "non-stop" buses to Manchester, let alone the airport (save for some very irregular National Expresses). The No8 would get me to Shudehill by 1130; so that's no good to even transfer to a tram.

The 524 could get me to Radcliffe tram stop by 11 - add 1.10 to the airport if all on time and there's no time to get through security. So I'm stuffed other than a £30 taxi fare. Or just hope the trains are almost running to schedule.

Now if Bolton were better served by other transport links the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not going on about my local line, I'm talking about the Manchester area in general. The more Metrolink conversions there are the fewer routes available for freight to use. If it wasn't for Metrolink there would be more alternatives to sending long freight trains through the Piccadilly platform 13/14 bottleneck.

Eh? Where were you going to send them that avoids P13/14? Through Manchester city centre or down the winding route to Eccles?

But in any case if you do what you want and up the heavy rail to Merseyrail style frequencies, there's nowhere to send them on those lines either. Merseyrail is heavy rail but it has no freight and nor will it have. If, as I believe is the case, the Atherton line is going to 4tph on the Merseyrail model (though with DMUs), it isn't going to fit there either.

However, I see you persist with your usual rubbish about longer trains running to low frequencies. It's one thing saying that if there's already 4tph - going from a 15 minute frequency to a 12 minute frequency won't win over passengers but when it's 1tph or 2tph the enhanced frequency almost certainly will win over extra passengers. Think about it - if you need to make a journey involving a change and both lines you need to use have a half-hourly service then you could end up with a 10 minute journey on the first train, a 25 minute connection time and then a 20 minute journey on the second train (55 minutes total) but if both lines have 15 minute frequencies it becomes something more like 40 minutes total. If you make a return journey every day that's freeing up 2.5 hours of travelling time every week and if you don't currently use the train 40 minutes is more likely to be competitive with the road than 55 minutes.

Did you read the bit on properly designed Taktfahrplaene? In the 1990s DB's regional lines mostly operated two-hourly (0.5tph). But once you started your journey it would progress smoothly with little standing around due to properly planned connections.

 

[northwichcat]

Eh? Where were you going to send them that avoids P13/14? Through Manchester city centre or down the winding route to Eccles?

With the addition of an extra set of points (which would have costed a fraction of the Metrolink conversion) Crewe-Middlewich-Northwich-Sale-Trafford Park would have been possible which would have both freed up capacity on the WCML and freed up capacity through central Manchester.

But in any case if you do what you want and up the heavy rail to Merseyrail style frequencies, there's nowhere to send them on those lines either. Merseyrail is heavy rail but it has no freight and nor will it have. If, as I believe is the case, the Atherton line is going to 4tph on the Merseyrail model (though with DMUs), it isn't going to fit there either.

I'm not saying there's a case for Merseyrail style frequencies on every route, I'm saying there's a case for service enhancements if existing trains are full and there's a low frequency while you seem to be arguing if the platforms can take 6 x 20m then 1tph with 6 cars is perfectly adequate and frequency enhancements should be avoided.

Did you read the bit on properly designed Taktfahrplaene? In the 1990s DB's regional lines mostly operated two-hourly (0.5tph). But once you started your journey it would progress smoothly with little standing around due to properly planned connections.

You can't compare local trains in Manchester to Taktfahrplaene! It's one thing if you're talking about a half-hourly fast service from Manchester to Crewe with a 2 hourly direct Cardiff service and a 2 hourly Liverpool-Crewe-Cardiff service with a good connection to a Manchester service at Crewe. It's a very different thing saying Atherton would only have a 2 hourly direct service to Manchester but there would be a lot more options by changing at Salford.

 

[snowball]

I'm not going on about my local line, I'm talking about the Manchester area in general. The more Metrolink conversions there are the fewer routes available for freight to use. If it wasn't for Metrolink there would be more alternatives to sending long freight trains through the Piccadilly platform 13/14 bottleneck.

How often did freight use the Bury, Altrincham or Rochdale via Oldham lines?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can't compare local trains in Manchester to Taktfahrplaene!

You can, and they should. It can work with any frequency of standard pattern service, though once you get to and past about 4tph you get diminishing returns (though it is still sensible to think about connections and avoid timetabling them to be unreachable[1], because getting off and seeing a set of tail lamps is frustrating and incredibly poor publicity).

[1] So if you've got A-X-Y-B and C-X-Y-D both every 15 minutes, it's sensible to offset them by at least 5 minutes to allow people to easily change both ways within the core. However if you also have C-X-Y-B there is no need to plan the connection that way round, so the sensible option is to plan so the short connection is the one people will want.

 

[northwichcat]

How often did freight use the Bury, Altrincham or Rochdale via Oldham lines?

I don't know the answer to that but freight which needs to get from one side of Manchester to the other has increased significantly in recent years, while the number of routes available to freight trains have decreased!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know the answer to that but freight which needs to get from one side of Manchester to the other has increased significantly in recent years, while the number of routes available to freight trains have decreased!

The Bury and Rochdale lines are no use for freight. They weren't when it was DMUs either, there were too many DMUs and too many stations.

Alty to some extent perhaps, but I doubt it was many.

In any case, which ones can't you now send via Vic or a more southerly route e.g. Crewe?

 

[td97]

https://www.networkrailmediacentre....orthern-apologises-for-may-timetable-troubles

Network Rail, GTR and Northern apologises[sic] for May timetable troubles
What are we going to do to put it right?

Network Rail, Northern and GTR are urgently working on comprehensive plans to reduce disruption and give passengers the greatest possible certainty of train services, so they can better plan ahead. Unfortunately, it will take some time to deliver significant improvements to services, but we will keep passengers up to date on all changes

David Brown, Managing Director, Northern said: “We are doing everything we can to minimise cancellations and keep customers informed. It has been extremely difficult for many of our customers, in particular on a number of routes around north Manchester, Liverpool, and Blackpool extending up to Cumbria, and we are truly sorry for this.
“We‘ve agreed a number of actions with the Department for Transport and are urgently working with them on a comprehensive plan to stabilise our services. Such a plan is likely to take a number of weeks to deliver lasting improvements, but we recognise our customers deserve better and that’s what we’re focused on.”

So very generic and very light on details

 

[northwichcat]

The Bury and Rochdale lines are no use for freight. They weren't when it was DMUs either, there were too many DMUs and too many stations.

Alty to some extent perhaps, but I doubt it was many.

In any case, which ones can't you now send via Vic or a more southerly route e.g. Crewe?

It doesn't matter how many freight trains Bury and Altrincham got in the 1980s, it matters how many freight trains could use the line today if they weren't now Metrolink. A lot has changed since the 1980s - Greater Manchester's waste was going to landfill, now they are transporting it by train to Runcorn, while Drax weren't operating biomass trains to and from Liverpool docks in the 1980s. If Weaver Junction to Edgley Junction can have uses for freight going from Liverpool docks to the east side of Manchester then I'm sure uses could have been found for the Oldham Loop. In fact wasn't one of the reasons the Oldham Loop went down to 3tph during leaf fall season in relation to fitting the slower services around freight?

Bury was actually an EMU route prior to Metrolink, albeit the only surviving DC electric route in the Manchester area which meant the electrics needed changing unless it was to get a new type of rolling stock unique to the area.