What would you sacrifice?

[Purple Orange]

As always, there is a lot of talk about what should be changed on the railway. What would you accept being taken away from your line in the name of improving the overall network?

1. What does your line currently have?
2. What would you accept seeing go?
3. What would the benefit be?

My local station is Wilmslow. It has 5 tph:

• 1 x Avanti Manchester-London fast
• 1 x TfW Manchester-Cardiff fast
• 1 x Northern Southport-Alderley Edge stopper
• 1 x Northern Manchester-Crewe via Stockport stopper
• 1 x Northern Liverpool-Crewe via Manchester Airport stopper

I am happy for the Southport-Alderley Edge to split. It’s a loss of a service to Oxford Road & Deansgate, but I see the gain in reliability. I’d also be ok with losing the TfW fast to Piccadilly, but I’d rather have a stopper in it’s place. A 3-car DMU is not an intercity service. We don’t need a connection to Liverpool on a stopper either, but the link to the airport is useful.

 

[cle]

For Wilmslow, I agree the second fast should be something else. Keep saying it, but I'd move all Wales services to Victoria. Creates another WBQ fast to reduce the CLC fast dependency and opens up Crewe-Victoria.

The fast slot could be a semi-fast (350 or similar) to Birmingham. Electric, and at least 4 cars. More useful for the catchment at Wilmslow, and shorter trains shouldn't be running over Stockport.

 

[Purple Orange]

For Wilmslow, I agree the second fast should be something else. Keep saying it, but I'd move all Wales services to Victoria. Creates another WBQ fast to reduce the CLC fast dependency and opens up Crewe-Victoria.

The fast slot could be a semi-fast (350 or similar) to Birmingham. Electric, and at least 4 cars. More useful for the catchment at Wilmslow, and shorter trains shouldn't be running over Stockport.

I like the idea of a 350 doing a Birmingham shuttle run and it really should be the type of service that exists on on the WCML post HS2 on the Stoke branch, however I’d have it as an 8-car service calling at more stops than XC do presently.

The TfW service is such an odd service. Imagine XC stopping at 17 stations between Manchester & Bristol, then stopping at every shack after leaving Bristol before arriving at Plymouth! If TfW is making that many stops, I see no reason why it should not just make more stops between Wilmslow & Manchester too - especially given that it goes at a snails pace more often than not, and especially given that the new fleet will have doors at 1/3 & 2/3.

 

[30907]

The TfW service is such an odd service. Imagine XC stopping at 17 stations between Manchester & Bristol, then stopping at every shack after leaving Bristol before arriving at Plymouth! If TfW is making that many stops, I see no reason why it should not just make more stops between Wilmslow & Manchester too - especially given that it goes at a snails pace more often than not, and especially given that the new fleet will have doors at 1/3 & 2/3.

The TfW service generally (there are variations) runs semi-fast Manchester-Shrewsbury and Newport-Swansea; given that it is 2/3 of the service over the middle section, it's not surprising it stops at most of the stations. I don't see anything odd about that.
Turning it into an all-stations at the Manchester end would only make sense if Manchester was significantly smaller than Crewe (as Carmarthen is compared with Swansea).

On the original topic: Shipley is my local station, and it has 6tph to Bradford but 5tph on average to Leeds. Provision to Bradford is generous, and I could see a case for running 4tph Leeds-Skipton offpeak (two semi-fast, including Carlisle/Lancaster, and two all stations) and cancelling the Leeds-Bradfords. It's not ideal, and Frizinghall would lose out which may be politically unacceptable as well as commercial. It would be an economy measure more than a benefit to the posher parts of Airedale.

 

[HST43257]

I see Crewe to Manchester being fine without the Alderley Edge terminator, but I think it should retain 2 fast and 2 slow from Crewe to Wilmslow. As current, the 2 fasts and 1 slow would go via Stockport, with 1 slow via the Airport. The Stoke stopper would come in and run in the opposite half hour to the Crewe stopper, effectively taking the path of the stopper via the Airport if it ran via Stockport.

 

[Purple Orange]

I see Crewe to Manchester being fine without the Alderley Edge terminator, but I think it should retain 2 fast and 2 slow from Crewe to Wilmslow. As current, the 2 fasts and 1 slow would go via Stockport, with 1 slow via the Airport. The Stoke stopper would come in and run in the opposite half hour to the Crewe stopper, effectively taking the path of the stopper via the Airport if it ran via Stockport.

So you’d get rid of the Alderley Edge stopper via Stockport, this reducing frequency to intermediate stations by 1 tph?

 

[Ianno87]

The XC Birmingham-Stansted service being cut back to Birmingham-Cambridge only (except for early/late services as at present).

Liverpool-Norwich split at Nottingham.

 

[py_megapixel]

I see Crewe to Manchester being fine without the Alderley Edge terminator, but I think it should retain 2 fast and 2 slow from Crewe to Wilmslow. As current, the 2 fasts and 1 slow would go via Stockport, with 1 slow via the Airport. The Stoke stopper would come in and run in the opposite half hour to the Crewe stopper, effectively taking the path of the stopper via the Airport if it ran via Stockport.

So you’d get rid of the Alderley Edge stopper via Stockport, this reducing frequency to intermediate stations by 1 tph?

In my opinion, 2tph on that line is justified, but not necessarily all day.
The problem with only 1tph is that Handforth and Alderley Edge would have an hourly service only, and that is probably enough to push commuters into their cars.

Therefore, I would retain Alderley Edge stoppers at least between around 7:30 and 10:30, and between around 15:30 and 18:30.

 

[HST43257]

In my opinion, 2tph on that line is justified, but not necessarily all day.
The problem with only 1tph is that Handforth and Alderley Edge would have an hourly service only, and that is probably enough to push commuters into their cars.

Therefore, I would retain Alderley Edge stoppers at least between around 7:30 and 10:30, and between around 15:30 and 18:30.

Yes, perhaps 2tph In peaks is justified. I think we all know what happens when you get on the wrong side of Handforth

 

[Purple Orange]

I’d go the opposite and sacrifice a fast from Wilmslow for a stopper. Encourage far more people out of their cars. If a station is in an urban area, within 10 miles of a big city, it should be able to handle a high frequency stopping service, whether that be heavy rail, light rail metro, or tram. The trouble is, it’s the WCML.

 

[HST43257]

The trouble is, it’s the WCML.

You have to make sure there’s a good fast service on offer, whilst also catering for commuters.

 

[Purple Orange]

You have to make sure there’s a good fast service on offer, whilst also catering for commuters.

It’s 25 mins v just under 20 mins (let’s say 18 mins). I certainly don’t plan my day around arriving at Wilmslow to catch a TfW or Avanti service. If the stopper arrives first, I’ll jump on that. 1 fast from Wilmslow to/from London works well (but that won’t be needed forever).

 

[HST43257]

It’s 25 mins v just under 20 mins (let’s say 18 mins). I certainly don’t plan my day around arriving at Wilmslow to catch a TfW or Avanti service. If the stopper arrives first, I’ll jump on that. 1 fast from Wilmslow to/from London works well (but that won’t be needed forever).

But Manchester/Stockport to Crewe is a busy flow AFAIK. Wilmslow seems like a sensible place to call as well. Youre not going to have Avanti calling at Goostrey and Handforth anytime soon (id Hope)

 

[Purple Orange]

But Manchester/Stockport to Crewe is a busy flow AFAIK. Wilmslow seems like a sensible place to call as well. Youre not going to have Avanti calling at Goostrey and Handforth anytime soon (id Hope)

No of course not for Avanti. I’m saying lose the fast TfW. I’ve just checked the times, it is 27 mins on the Northern stopping service, but 24 mins with TfW in to Manchester. 3 whole minutes faster, which is regularly eroded.

 

[py_megapixel]

No of course not for Avanti. I’m saying lose the fast TfW. I’ve just checked the times, it is 27 mins on the Northern stopping service, but 24 mins with TfW in to Manchester. 3 whole minutes faster, which is regularly eroded.

Where would you send it instead?

The loss of Manchester-Shrewsbury would be bad.

 

[HST43257]

Where would you send it instead?

The loss of Manchester-Shrewsbury would be bad.

I’d imagine Manchester to Cardiff isn’t the quietest flow either.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Hmm, good question.

Let's see. From my local station (Hull), there is (based off the December 20 timetable which is essentially full service for us bar some Bridlington additionals) 1tph Northern to Sheffield, 1tph Northern to York, 1tph Northern to Halifax, 1tph Northern to Doncaster and 1tph Northern to Scarborough. There's additionally 1tph TPE to Manchester Piccadilly, as well as the odd trains to London.

I don't really see anything from that to chop to be honest.

 

[YorksLad12]

As always, there is a lot of talk about what should be changed on the railway. What would you accept being taken away from your line in the name of improving the overall network?

1. What does your line currently have?
2. What would you accept seeing go?
3. What would the benefit be?

CrossCountry in its entirety, replaced with local semi-fast services. I'm sure Leeds-Sheffield commuters (when they return) would prefer a train to themselves rather than sharing with Birmingham-Newcastle leisure travellers...

 

[Purple Orange]

CrossCountry in its entirety, replaced with local semi-fast services. I'm sure Leeds-Sheffield commuters (when they return) would prefer a train to themselves rather than sharing with Birmingham-Newcastle leisure travellers...

What semi-fast services would you replace it with? Is a NE-Bham connection not useful?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2021 ==

Where would you send it instead?

The loss of Manchester-Shrewsbury would be bad.

I’d send it in to Manchester Victoria via Warrington, along with sending the north wales TfW service there too.

 

[Glenn1969]

So I presume that means it going via Chester instead of via Crewe?

Good for passengers in Chester and Wrexham but what happpens to those wanting a fast service Shrewsbury - Crewe?

 

[Purple Orange]

So I presume that means it going via Chester instead of via Crewe?

Good for passengers in Chester and Wrexham but what happpens to those wanting a fast service Shrewsbury - Crewe?

It would still go to Crewe, then to Warrington BQ, then along the Chat Moss in to Victoria.

 

[Metrolink]

So I presume that means it going via Chester instead of via Crewe?

Good for passengers in Chester and Wrexham but what happpens to those wanting a fast service Shrewsbury - Crewe?

It would still go to Crewe, then to Warrington BQ, then along the Chat Moss in to Victoria.

Would TfW services be allowed to even use Crewe to Earlstown?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Nothing.

Crewe - Derby receives only an hourly service, with a very limited evening service and Sunday service from mid-afternoon only.

Since privatisation we have seen our new trains removed (170's) and replaced by the 153's, for the 170's to possibly reappear soon, now that they are nice and knackered.

I have seen many routes elsewhere benefit from increased frequencies, new services and new rolling stock, all the supposed benefits of privatisation which have completely passed us by. Let any imminent cuts pass us by in equal measure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

CrossCountry in its entirety, replaced with local semi-fast services. I'm sure Leeds-Sheffield commuters (when they return) would prefer a train to themselves rather than sharing with Birmingham-Newcastle leisure travellers...

That's more "making someone else sacrifice something so you get what you want", isn't it?

I find this one hard to answer because it depends what I was getting. One example I can think of is that I'd sacrifice the off peak hourly fast from Bletchley to Euston for a Merseyrail style clockface 4tph slower service. Because an hourly fast is all very nice if it matches the arrival time you need in London, but if it doesn't your journey is de-facto rather slower as you have to take the earlier one and sit around.

 

[yorksrob]

I live on the Hallam line which gets one stopper and two fasts an hour in normal times. It could probably survive with a stopper and a fast.

Alternatively, one of the fasts could become a semi-fast to improve connectivity.

 

[YorksLad12]

I live on the Hallam line which gets one stopper and two fasts an hour in normal times. It could probably survive with a stopper and a fast.

Alternatively, one of the fasts could become a semi-fast to improve connectivity.

The fasts are already semi-fasts. I like the idea suggested in the Hallam Line thread last year of sending the stopping service via Altofts instead of Castleford, or pulling it completely and having the semi-fasts call at Normanton or Darton to compensate.

 

[yorksrob]

The fasts are already semi-fasts. I like the idea suggested in the Hallam Line thread last year of sending the stopping service via Altofts instead of Castleford, or pulling it completely and having the semi-fasts call at Normanton or Darton to compensate.

My ulterior motive is that I think Normanton ought to be half hourly to Leeds, but I'm not convinced that the two non-stops are entirely justified in their current form.

 

[YorksLad12]

That's more "making someone else sacrifice something so you get what you want", isn't it?

Not really. I'm in favour of as few changes as reasonable when travelling, which is why I'd like to keep Leeds to Manchester Airport services; or why I prefer to take the Circle Line from Kings Cross to Westminster when I do that trip. But I'd sacrifice that choice if it meant services as a whole were improved, especially in terms of reliability. XC is always the poor relation because it crosses so many radial lines and urban networks.

 

[318266]

The following Cathcart Circle stations/services to convert to either a tram or 2nd Glasgow Subway line. Not all stations/services, however throw the axe at ScotRail services to:

• Cathcart Circle services (the circular services, not the line itself)
• The line via Shawlands
• Most stops between Mount Florida and Glasgow Central via Crosshill

So as to provide fast journey times to Neilston/Newton via Kirkhill etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really. I'm in favour of as few changes as reasonable when travelling, which is why I'd like to keep Leeds to Manchester Airport services; or why I prefer to take the Circle Line from Kings Cross to Westminster when I do that trip. But I'd sacrifice that choice if it meant services as a whole were improved, especially in terms of reliability. XC is always the poor relation because it crosses so many radial lines and urban networks.

Fair enough. To me the problem with XC is it trying to be all things to all people. I think I'd go more for the idea of putting in regional expresses for the large and commuter flows, but keep something more like old XC for the long-distance direct passenger as well - probably based on a 2 hour pattern and slower with more slack.