New Stateman article: North TPE trains are like distracted ponies

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that the title thread comparison of certain railway units to that of "distracted ponies" has now covered the name title of the British Isles (a term that is not recognised by the Government of Eire) and I wonder what other extraneous off-thread matters will next be discussed under this thread title definition.

 

[jimm]

The order of British cities in that listing is:

London, Dublin, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Belfast, Southampton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Sheffield and Nottingham.

Seems bizarre to me. I mean, how could they forget Huddersfield?

Well, we could try the obvious point that Huddersfield is a town, not a city, so wouldn't be included in a list of cities....

 

[Starmill]

From their analysis on North TPE:



Their analysis also shows the following annual passenger usage:

Huddersfield-Manchester 470,000
Manchester-Leeds 809,000
Huddersfield-Leeds 3,702,000

I think that makes a very good case for all TPE services to call at Huddersfield.

What it makes the case for is a high-frequency, high-capacity service between Huddersfield and Leeds, the fare is already relatively cheap.

The trains don't necessarily have to be the Manchester ones!

 

[34D]

What it makes the case for is a high-frequency, high-capacity service between Huddersfield and Leeds, the fare is already relatively cheap.

The trains don't necessarily have to be the Manchester ones!

Very true. I would like two TP an hour to go non-stop through Huddersfield (westbound through p1, eastbound thru p4). They can have the other three stop.

 

[northwichcat]

The trains don't necessarily have to be the Manchester ones!

Well would you prefer North TPE to consist of one train every 20 minutes between Manchester and York with a Huddersfield-Leeds express shuttle every 20 minutes opposed to the expected 4 fast North TPE services and 2 semi-fast North TPE services? There wouldn't be enough paths for a regular Huddersfield-Leeds express shuttle on top of North TPE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Very true. I would like two TP an hour to go non-stop through Huddersfield (westbound through p1, eastbound thru p4). They can have the other three stop.

Have you got something against Huddersfield? You seem to be posting comments which imply Huddersfield isn't allowed as many North TPE trains as Leeds just because it's smaller. Leeds does have many more trains than Huddersfield overall and to get to many destinations from Huddersfield a change at Leeds is required because of the vaster range of services available from Leeds.

It's already been pointed out that the main thing that delays TPE services is the long dwell times at Leeds and Manchester and not the call at Huddersfield.

From the next timetable change the following trains wouldn't be able to use platform 4 because of conflicts with Northern services:
Liverpool-Scarborough
Manchester Airport-York
Manchester-Hull

So if the Airport-Middlesbrough and Liverpool-Newcastle services omitted Huddersfield to give 2tph that don't call at Huddersfield as you suggest that would give North TPE departures of xx:13, xx:46, xx:55 eastbound and xx:30, xx:40, xx:56 westbound. That would be great for Huddersfield wouldn't it? Two trains departing within 10 minutes of each other but a gap of 34 minutes between other services.

Why not instead just move TPE departures to platforms 11 and 12 at Leeds? It'll probably save you just as much time as omitting Huddersfield as you'll have a shorter distance to walk to the entrance.

 

[Starmill]

Look, are we going for Leeds - Manchester in 40 minutes or not?


I suspect that isn't going to happen now anyway regardless. But Huddersfield is less important and smaller than Leeds... that's not to say Huddersfield isn't important at all! It's a difficult issue and perhaps it could be approached like Reading, with some tweaking.

You seem to be posting comments which imply Huddersfield isn't allowed as many North TPE trains as Leeds just because it's smaller.

That is generally how it works...

It's an unfortunate (and annoying!) characteristic of trying to squeeze modern demands out of Victorian infrastructure with absolutely no space to expand the capital that large and very important point-to-point flows overtake capacity provided to places along the route.

I'm sure the residents of Rugeley - and worse, Atherstone, have learned this bitter lesson better than those of Huddersfield and the Bolton commuters must be feeling pretty aggrieved for it too... but perhaps none quite so much as those of Polesworth, Barlaston, Wedgewood and Norton Bridge.

The odd train in the peak that doesn't stop at Huddersfield might give the longer distance passengers a bit more breathing room too, which leaves a better impression and a more comfortable journey for passengers making longer journeys. Not really as much of a problem here as it was on other corridors but still.

 

[34D]

Have you got something against Huddersfield?

Not at all. I'd just like some Leeds-Man pic to omit it, in the same way as I'd like some Leeds-London KX to omit Wakefield Westgate.

As the Huddersfield lines become E and F, it is eminently sensible that they continue to use platforms 15 and 16 at Leeds.

 

[Starmill]

There'd also be something symbolic about how highly we value our regional connections if we could get a train to originate somewhere with calls to Leeds and then call only at Manchester Victoria and Liverpool Lime Street.

 

[LateThanNever]

There'd also be something symbolic about how highly we value our regional connections if we could get a train to originate somewhere with calls to Leeds and then call only at Manchester Victoria and Liverpool Lime Street.

So Huddersfield in spite of having created a sh** hot university out of very little lacks symbolism? And what is Manchester Victoria symbolic of exactly?

 

[HowardGWR]

There'd also be something symbolic about how highly we value our regional connections if we could get a train to originate somewhere with calls to Leeds and then call only at Manchester Victoria and Liverpool Lime Street.

I get the impression from this discussion that the new HSL line that simply stops at Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - (York) is the ultimate answer. I am an outsider though.

 

[Starmill]

So Huddersfield in spite of having created a sh** hot university out of very little lacks symbolism? And what is Manchester Victoria symbolic of exactly?

People just need to stop taking this too personally.


First of all Leeds and Manchester are cities, Huddersfield is a town. People don't get this het up about Wakefield or Bradford! Or maybe they do actually and I shouldn't have said that! It is NOT AN INSULT TO HUDDERSFIELD - the place just has the technical disadvantage of being right between the two big places in railway terms - that's actually to it's advantage geographically.

I'm fed up of this debate now and we've been through the technical aspects of it thoroughly; how much space there is in the station and what the paths are like etc. But please; there's no need for the emotion about the University of Huddersfield - it is a fine institution and I have friends there. But the University of Manchester and the University of Leeds are also fine institutions! And what's this about what Manchester Victoria? It stands for the City of Manchester and will soon be able to do so in the glorious fashion which Huddersfield station represents the town it serves.

 

[fowler9]

Possibly slightly off subject but based on what a few people have said, why the heck does HS2 have to go to Manchester Airport? So people from Birmingham and London can get to flights from Manchester and spend money on a high speed rail ticket to catch a flight they could have caught where they live?

 

[jimm]

Look, are we going for Leeds - Manchester in 40 minutes or not?


I suspect that isn't going to happen now anyway regardless. But Huddersfield is less important and smaller than Leeds... that's not to say Huddersfield isn't important at all! It's a difficult issue and perhaps it could be approached like Reading, with some tweaking.


That is generally how it works...

It's an unfortunate (and annoying!) characteristic of trying to squeeze modern demands out of Victorian infrastructure with absolutely no space to expand the capital that large and very important point-to-point flows overtake capacity provided to places along the route.

I'm sure the residents of Rugeley - and worse, Atherstone, have learned this bitter lesson better than those of Huddersfield and the Bolton commuters must be feeling pretty aggrieved for it too... but perhaps none quite so much as those of Polesworth, Barlaston, Wedgewood and Norton Bridge.

The odd train in the peak that doesn't stop at Huddersfield might give the longer distance passengers a bit more breathing room too, which leaves a better impression and a more comfortable journey for passengers making longer journeys. Not really as much of a problem here as it was on other corridors but still.

Like Reading? Virtually everything stops at Reading. And where I live, we hear a great deal about how important Worcester and Hereford are, despite being two of the smallest cities in the country, and how Cotswold Line trains should omit intermediate stops west of Oxford to get to and from Worcester faster, never mind that the intermediate stops generate the money that allows Worcester to enjoy the number of London services that it does.

What have small towns and villages in Staffordshire and North Warwickshire got to do with the level of services at a large town with heavy traffic flows to the cities east and west of it? That's right. Nothing.

You and 34D both burble on about how marvellous it would be for trains to skip Huddersfield but neither of you seems willing to engage with the issue of how many trains you can actually squeeze on to the tracks between Huddersfield and Leeds each hour, which jcollins pointed out.

There'd also be something symbolic about how highly we value our regional connections if we could get a train to originate somewhere with calls to Leeds and then call only at Manchester Victoria and Liverpool Lime Street.

And what about Huddersfield's regional connections?

People just need to stop taking this too personally.


First of all Leeds and Manchester are cities, Huddersfield is a town. People don't get this het up about Wakefield or Bradford! Or maybe they do actually and I shouldn't have said that! It is NOT AN INSULT TO HUDDERSFIELD - the place just has the technical disadvantage of being right between the two big places in railway terms - that's actually to it's advantage geographically.

Huddersfield is much bigger than many cities, Wakefield being just one example. If you were to ask people in Bradford what they thought about their rail connections to both London and Manchester, you'd find they would get a bit het up actually.

Whatever TPE and Northern do on this corridor, they are on a hiding to nothing, unless and until they get lots more rolling stock. If they were able to operate six-car formations all day, every day, everyone would have more breathing space, whatever distance they were travelling. And if you asked people whether they would rather have a seat and a 50-minute journey time, they'd take that over standing for 40 minutes every time - even assuming you ever could get near 40 minutes on the existing infrastructure.

 

[fowler9]

Like Reading? Virtually everything stops at Reading. And where I live, we hear a great deal about how important Worcester and Hereford are, despite being two of the smallest cities in the country, and how Cotswold Line trains should omit intermediate stops west of Oxford to get to and from Worcester faster, never mind that the intermediate stops generate the money that allows Worcester to enjoy the number of London services that it does.

What have small towns and villages in Staffordshire and North Warwickshire got to do with the level of services at a large town with heavy traffic flows to the cities east and west of it? That's right. Nothing.

You and 34D both burble on about how marvellous it would be for trains to skip Huddersfield but neither of you seems willing to engage with the issue of how many trains you can actually squeeze on to the tracks between Huddersfield and Leeds each hour, which jcollins pointed out.




And what about Huddersfield's regional connections?



Huddersfield is much bigger than many cities, Wakefield being just one example. If you were to ask people in Bradford what they thought about their rail connections to both London and Manchester, you'd find they would get a bit het up actually.

Whatever TPE and Northern do on this corridor, they are on a hiding to nothing, unless and until they get lots more rolling stock. If they were able to operate six-car formations all day, every day, everyone would have more breathing space, whatever distance they were travelling. And if you asked people whether they would rather have a seat and a 50-minute journey time, they'd take that over standing for 40 minutes every time - even assuming you ever could get near 40 minutes on the existing infrastructure.

From figures I have been able to find Warrington has a bigger population than Huddersfield but people don't mind skipping it on the trans pennine network.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So Huddersfield in spite of having created a sh** hot university out of very little lacks symbolism? And what is Manchester Victoria symbolic of exactly?

Being someone of advanced years and a member of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society, I will endeavour to answer the query that you raise about the symbolism of Manchester Victoria railway station. In the very earliest days of the railways, there were two railway companies who both had terminal railway stations in the Manchester region (noting the proximity of Salford):-
The Liverpool and Manchester Railway at Liverpool Road station.
The Manchester and Leeds Railway at Oldham Road station.

It was soon obvious that the conveyance of goods which were the main raison d'etre for both railways needed a centrally positioned through railway station in the centre of Manchester which would allow continual running from Liverpool into Leeds so the Manchester and Leeds Railway purchased the land for this new through station and completion was seen in 1844. A formal approach was made to Queen Victoria to allow her name to be used in the name of this new railway station, which she gave her pleasure of acceptance to the request.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From figures I have been able to find Warrington has a bigger population than Huddersfield but people don't mind skipping it on the trans pennine network.

Though Warrington does have a regular service to London at least... It seems from what I've observed at Huddersfield, the numbers getting off TPE services (from both directions) in the AM peak is significant, if not quite as large a number as those boarding. Warrington might well be bigger (depending on which figures are used) but it won't have the same number of in-bound rail commuters as Huddersfield, I'd have thought.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Possibly slightly off subject but based on what a few people have said, why the heck does HS2 have to go to Manchester Airport? So people from Birmingham and London can get to flights from Manchester and spend money on a high speed rail ticket to catch a flight they could have caught where they live?

And I'd agree, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this forum, if the UK ever builds a new hub airport it will be in the south east and inevitably it will "suck" passengers south, as Manchester will not be able to draw the main long haul flights. It'd does mean the end for Manchester but it will likely lead to a change in the destinations served.

The problem with the current proposed north/south HS2 link is that the rest of the north west is excluded from the "benefits". Building HS2 phase 1 to Crewe makes more sense, but then raises more questions about the alignment of the next phase northwards. Building HS2 a separate line from Crewe to Manchester Airport and Piccadilly would still offer little benefit for the entire north of England, but perhaps building a HS2 line between Liverpool and Manchester Airport through to Piccadilly with a junction with HS2 north/south near Warrington and then eastwards to Leeds would offer the best benefits. although construction would be expensive.

 

[edwin_m]

Possibly slightly off subject but based on what a few people have said, why the heck does HS2 have to go to Manchester Airport? So people from Birmingham and London can get to flights from Manchester and spend money on a high speed rail ticket to catch a flight they could have caught where they live?

The Airport is a good site for access by car off the motorway network, so provides an alternative for those who drive to Stockport, Wilmslow or elsewhere to catch their trains. It will soon have Metrolink connections to much of southern Manchester (with the possibility of these being extended from the existing Airport station to the HS2 station). There is also a lot of development going on around the Airport.

 

[northwichcat]

That is generally how it works...

No. It's not as simple as that.

You're either a large station like Leeds, York, Huddersfield, Bolton, Warrington, Durham or Darlington which all TPE trains which pass through stop at.

OR

A medium sized station like Dewsbury or Stalybridge which selected services call at.

OR

A small station which some peak time services stop at due to there not being enough paths for more local trains or insufficient space on local trains e.g. Irlam.

How many services would routes like the Penistone Line need if every station got more services than the ones it is smaller than?

I'm sure the residents of Rugeley - and worse, Atherstone, have learned this bitter lesson better than those of Huddersfield and the Bolton commuters must be feeling pretty aggrieved for it too... but perhaps none quite so much as those of Polesworth, Barlaston, Wedgewood and Norton Bridge.

Huddersfield has 18.25 times more residents than Atherstone so I'm not sure what your point is. There are many places bigger than Atherstone with only an hourly service so maybe by your opening statement Atherstone should get a reduced frequency so that larger places have more trains than Atherstone.

The odd train in the peak that doesn't stop at Huddersfield might give the longer distance passengers a bit more breathing room too, which leaves a better impression and a more comfortable journey for passengers making longer journeys. Not really as much of a problem here as it was on other corridors but still.

Will it though? If you split the Huddersfield passengers over 5 services they'll be less of them per service than if you split them over 4. Unless you're proposing using 2 car 170s on the services which omit Huddersfield and then more capacity on the busiest diagrams which do call at Huddersfield?

Currently with Huddersfield the issue with North TPE is the Hull service means there's 3tph to York but not very evenly spaced - which of course isn't an issue at Leeds due to Leeds also having XC services. With the new Liverpool-Newcastle service that'll be less of an issue but only if all the TPE services stop at Huddersfield. Otherwise, if you want to avoid that problem and have services missing out Huddersfield then you'd have to cut Hull's direct service to Huddersfield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From figures I have been able to find Warrington has a bigger population than Huddersfield but people don't mind skipping it on the trans pennine network.

Mmm what TPE services routed via Warrington miss out Warrington Central? AFAIK it's 0 services. Warrington Central is expected to lose it's North TPE service eventually but is expected to get a Sheffield service in lieu as well as possibly a Hull service from Warrington Bank Quay (if not then a Leeds via Bradford service.)

 

[Wavertreelad]

The Airport is a good site for access by car off the motorway network, so provides an alternative for those who drive to Stockport, Wilmslow or elsewhere to catch their trains. It will soon have Metrolink connections to much of southern Manchester (with the possibility of these being extended from the existing Airport station to the HS2 station). There is also a lot of development going on around the Airport.

It might well be off the motorway network, but therein lies the problem. The traffic congestion on the surrounding motorways is already bad, so whilst it might be reachable from the leafy suburbs of south Manchester by the back roads, there seems to me little purpose queuing for up to an hour on the M6, M56, M60 or M62 particularly during peak hours to save just over an hour on the overall door/door journey. As for the parking, well if your station is within the confines of the Greater Manchester Airport Authority, you can expect it to be fairly expensive as they traditionally build into agreements a franchising arrangement. For passengers using the airport, or working near to the airport willing to use public transport, then yes I could support it but only as part of an east to west route to Liverpool linking to the north to south HS2 route from Crewe.

 

[fowler9]

No. It's not as simple as that.

You're either a large station like Leeds, York, Huddersfield, Bolton, Warrington, Durham or Darlington which all TPE trains which pass through stop at.

OR

A medium sized station like Dewsbury or Stalybridge which selected services call at.

OR

A small station which some peak time services stop at due to there not being enough paths for more local trains or insufficient space on local trains e.g. Irlam.

How many services would routes like the Penistone Line need if every station got more services than the ones it is smaller than?




Huddersfield has 18.25 more residents than Atherstone so I'm not sure what your point is. There are many places bigger than Atherstone with only an hourly service so maybe by your opening statement Atherstone should get a reduced frequency so that larger places have more trains than Atherstone.



Will it though? If you split the Huddersfield passengers over 5 services they'll be less of them per service than if you split them over 4. Unless you're proposing using 2 car 170s on the services which omit Huddersfield and then more capacity on the busiest diagrams which do call at Huddersfield?

Currently with Huddersfield the issue with North TPE is the Hull service means there's 3tph to York but not very evenly spaced - which of course isn't an issue at Leeds due to Leeds also having XC services. With the new Liverpool-Newcastle service that'll be less of an issue but only if all the TPE services stop at Huddersfield. Otherwise, if you want to avoid that problem and have services missing out Huddersfield then you'd have to cut Hull's direct service to Huddersfield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Mmm what TPE services routed via Warrington miss out Warrington Central? AFAIK it's 0 services. Warrington Central is expected to lose it's North TPE service eventually but is expected to get a Sheffield service in lieu as well as possibly a Hull service from Warrington Bank Quay (if not then a Leeds via Bradford service.)

Warrington gets one TPE per hour. How many does Huddersfield get?

 

[northwichcat]

Warrington gets one TPE per hour. How many does Huddersfield get?

My point is Warrington stations don't have any TPE services (or any services at all) going through them without stopping, not that it gets the same number of TPE as Huddersfield. Conversely, you could ask how many Virgin, EMT or ATW services stop at Huddersfield. Remember the original point you made was that TPE don't mind skipping Warrington, which seems to relate to a new service being introduced which isn't routed via Warrington opposed to skipping Warrington.

Overall Warrington gets:
Local Manchester services 2tph
Local Liverpool services 3tph (including services from Bank Quay)
Express Liverpool services 2tph
Scarborough via Manchester and Leeds 1tph
Norwich via Manchester and Sheffield 1tph
Manchester via Earlestown 1tph
Scotland 2tph
London 1tph
North Wales via Chester 1tph
Birmingham 1tph

Total: 15 services per hour

While Huddersfield gets:
Local Leeds services: 2tph (including service via Bradford)
Wakefield: 1tph
Hull via Leeds: 1tph
Newcastle via Leeds: 1tph
Middlesbrough via Leeds: 1tph
Scarborough via Leeds: 1tph
Local Manchester service: 1tph
Sheffield: 1tph
Manchester Airport via Manchester: 2tph
Liverpool via Manchester: 1tph
Manchester only: 1tph

Total: 13 services per hour - soon to be 15

So the total number of services is around the same. Although, Warrington does have the advantage of more local distance destinations like Edinburgh and London while the furthest you can go on a direct train from Huddersfield is to Newcastle followed by Middlesbrough.

Also the population figure for Warrington of 202,700 listed on Wikipedia is for the borough of Warrington including Birchwood, Penketh, Lymm, Daresbury, Thelwall etc. While the Huddersfield population of 146,234 is for the town of Huddersfield and doesn't include the likes of Brighouse, Holmfirth, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Mirfield etc.

 

[fowler9]

My point is Warrington stations don't have any TPE services (or any services at all) going through them without stopping, not that it gets the same number of TPE as Huddersfield. Conversely, you could ask how many Virgin, EMT or ATW services stop at Huddersfield. Remember the original point you made was that TPE don't mind skipping Warrington, which seems to relate to a new service being introduced which isn't routed via Warrington opposed to skipping Warrington.

Overall Warrington gets:
Local Manchester services 2tph
Local Liverpool services 3tph (including services from Bank Quay)
Express Liverpool services 2tph
Scarborough via Manchester and Leeds 1tph
Norwich via Manchester and Sheffield 1tph
Manchester via Earlestown 1tph
Scotland 2tph
London 1tph
North Wales via Chester 1tph
Birmingham 1tph

Total: 15 services per hour

While Huddersfield gets:
Local Leeds services: 2tph (including service via Bradford)
Wakefield: 1tph
Hull via Leeds: 1tph
Newcastle via Leeds: 1tph
Middlesbrough via Leeds: 1tph
Scarborough via Leeds: 1tph
Local Manchester service: 1tph
Sheffield: 1tph
Manchester Airport via Manchester: 2tph
Liverpool via Manchester: 1tph
Manchester only: 1tph

Total: 13 services per hour - soon to be 15

So the total number of services is around the same. Although, Warrington does have the advantage of more local distance destinations like Edinburgh and London while the furthest you can go on a direct train from Huddersfield is to Newcastle followed by Middlesbrough.

Also the population figure for Warrington of 202,700 listed on Wikipedia is for the borough of Warrington including Birchwood, Penketh, Lymm, Daresbury, Thelwall etc. While the Huddersfield population of 146,234 is for the town of Huddersfield and doesn't include the likes of Brighouse, Holmfirth, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Mirfield etc.

Completely understand what you are saying, at the same time though Warrington stations include Central and Bank Quay plus Sankey (Which gets naff all trains), Padgate (Which gets naff all trains) and Birchwood which gets a decent service. Lymm, Daresbury and Thelwall etc get nothing. Brighouse, Holmefirth, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Mirfield etc. all have stations at the very least. Sankey and Padgate are that close to Warrington Central as to make little difference.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Huddersfield has 18.25 more residents than Atherstone so I'm not sure what your point is.

I see that you are honing your statistical skills to allow for one quarter of a person. I am surprised to be told that Huddersfield only has just over 18 more residents than Atherstone..:roll:

 

[Welshman]

Completely understand what you are saying, at the same time though Warrington stations include Central and Bank Quay plus Sankey (Which gets naff all trains), Padgate (Which gets naff all trains) and Birchwood which gets a decent service. Lymm, Daresbury and Thelwall etc get nothing. Brighouse, Holmefirth, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Mirfield etc. all have stations at the very least. Sankey and Padgate are that close to Warrington Central as to make little difference.

Just to be pedantic -
"Holmefirth" [presumably you mean "Holmfirth"] railway station closed to passengers on 2nd November 1959, and completely on 3rd May 1965, so perhaps it should be removed from your list.

 

[northwichcat]

Completely understand what you are saying, at the same time though Warrington stations include Central and Bank Quay plus Sankey (Which gets naff all trains), Padgate (Which gets naff all trains) and Birchwood which gets a decent service. Lymm, Daresbury and Thelwall etc get nothing. Brighouse, Holmefirth, Slaithwaite, Marsden, Mirfield etc. all have stations at the very least. Sankey and Padgate are that close to Warrington Central as to make little difference.

A small station with an hourly service gets 'naff all' in your opinion? Considering larger places like Buxton, Knutsford and Clitheroe only get an hourly service, Padgate and Sankey don't have a bad service compared to other stations. Slaithwaite, Marsden and Mirfield don't get that many trains either.

The Warrington borough has excellent bus links for journeys within the borough. However, transport links to and from places in Cheshire West & Cheshire East do need looking at.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see that you are honing your statistical skills to allow for one quarter of a person.

Maybe I was assuming students who are there in term time only count as a fraction of a person. However, there is a serious point to that Huddersfield does have a university and the students there in term time only wouldn't usually be counted on the census at their term-time address but could use the train more than some people who are there all year round. I think that's something that affects Lancaster more than anywhere else.

 

[kieron]

From figures I have been able to find Warrington has a bigger population than Huddersfield but people don't mind skipping it on the trans pennine network.

Warrington is missed because the electrification misses it. The trains will go through St. Helens, though, but won't go near the town centre, or call at any stations it does encounter.

 

[fowler9]

Warrington is missed because the electrification misses it. The trains will go through St. Helens, though, but won't go near the town centre, or call at any stations it does encounter.

This I know. However away from what you say and regarding general services, Padgate and Sankey are very much part of Warringtons suburban area and have a poor service. Buxton is not a suburb of Manchester, Slaithwaite is not a suburb of Huddersfield.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, there is a serious point to that Huddersfield does have a university and the students there in term time only wouldn't usually be counted on the census at their term-time address but could use the train more than some people who are there all year round. I think that's something that affects Lancaster more than anywhere else.

I hope that your posting does not open the "annual can-of-worms" that is a discussion on a railway station for Lancaster University, as this has been an annual feature on this website in recent years.

 

[34D]

So are we concluding that the new Newcastle-Liverpool can miss out Huddersfield