Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Starmill]

Will the Blackpool-Airport services be 6-car do we think? Or will Hazel Grove-Piccadilly by 6-cars? I’m assuming it’ll be all stop along Styal.

They're not all diagrammed 6 car currently but withdrawing the Manchester Victoria - Preston services releases a pair of 331s so there may be enough for Manchester Airport - Blackpool North. I doubt they will be able to deploy 323s and extend platforms to accommodate 6 cars in just a 13 months though.

There doesn't appear to be any suggestion of a Manchester Piccadilly - Hazel Grove service? It does specifically note that the Wigan North Western - Hazel Grove services cannot run.

 

[tbtc]

A disappointing compromise, but I can see why they did it given the types of feedback that they were getting (e.g. seven times more respondents from Southport than from Liverpool), they are bound to listen to those who make the most noise

Some of the changes are definite improvements, trying to have simple half hourly services on a number of corridors (Liverpool - Sheffield, Atherton - Todmorden, Blackburn - Rochdale, Blackpool - Airport etc)

There's also some scope to improve/extend some services without it impacting upon paths in central Manchester (e.g. Buxton going back to half hourly), as I read it?

It's just a shame that they couldn't be a little more "ruthless", given that we'll probably not have another opportunity like this to "rip it up and start again" (i.e. the twin changes of Covid and GBR created the best opportunity to rewrite timetables rather than the bodge job we've had over the years where we couldn't tweak things because of franchise commitments, so the only option was the bodge of adding an extra hourly service here and an extra hourly service there, which is what caused the congestion that we've seen in recent years!)

I'd certainly be annoyed if I lived at one of the local stations on the Warrington Central line, seeing my service into Manchester cut significantly because Southport services are taking the Oxford Road slot that CLC stoppers used to have - Southport trains have the option of an alternative route into Manchester whilst the CLC obviously doesn't

 

[Starmill]

A disappointing compromise, but I can see why they did it given the types of feedback that they were getting (e.g. seven times more respondents from Southport than from Liverpool), they are bound to listen to those who make the most noise

Unfortunately so. They could have had 2tph Wigan - Bolton - Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge but fluffed it and send one of them to Manchester Oxford Road instead.

As a result, the Wigan - Golborne - Manchester Oxford Road - Hazel Grove has been binned.

Once again we have a station proposal with capital funding but no suitable service. Same as East Linton, Reston and Soham. We have got to stop doing this. It's unconscionable.

I'd certainly be annoyed if I lived at one of the local stations on the Warrington Central line, seeing my service into Manchester cut significantly because Southport services are taking the Oxford Road slot that CLC stoppers used to have - Southport trains have the option of an alternative route into Manchester whilst the CLC obviously doesn't

I think this remains unclear. If both Sheffield - Liverpool services call at Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood, 1tph stopper might have been OK. Sucks if you use Flixton though.

The greater cost is the loss of the extra slot for the Wigan North Western - Hazel Grove.

 

[Watershed]

A disappointing compromise, but I can see why they did it given the types of feedback that they were getting (e.g. seven times more respondents from Southport than from Liverpool), they are bound to listen to those who make the most noise

Some of the changes are definite improvements, trying to have simple half hourly services on a number of corridors (Liverpool - Sheffield, Atherton - Todmorden, Blackburn - Rochdale, Blackpool - Airport etc)

There's also some scope to improve/extend some services without it impacting upon paths in central Manchester (e.g. Buxton going back to half hourly), as I read it?

It's just a shame that they couldn't be a little more "ruthless", given that we'll probably not have another opportunity like this to "rip it up and start again" (i.e. the twin changes of Covid and GBR created the best opportunity to rewrite timetables rather than the bodge job we've had over the years where we couldn't tweak things because of franchise commitments, so the only option was the bodge of adding an extra hourly service here and an extra hourly service there, which is what caused the congestion that we've seen in recent years!)

I'd certainly be annoyed if I lived at one of the local stations on the Warrington Central line, seeing my service into Manchester cut significantly because Southport services are taking the Oxford Road slot that CLC stoppers used to have - Southport trains have the option of an alternative route into Manchester whilst the CLC obviously doesn't

Exactly; the document apparently bases a lot of its justifications on the percentage of respondents supporting a given outcome. Given how unrepresentative the respondents are - let alone how many questions were left unanswered - you could hardly have picked a worse data source if you tried.

It's blatantly obvious that a few hundred people from Southport (likely cajoled through the local RUG or MP) have basically steamrollered over anyone else's interests.

There is simply no way that the comparitively low volume of passengers from Southport to Castlefield (the document suggests a figure of 791 people, presumably per day) justifies sacrificing a second train per hour for the local CLC stations, or a second train per hour to the Airport for the much larger flow from York/Leeds/Huddersfield (2093 people per day).

Yes, of course they would be inconvenienced without a direct train to Castlefield. But at least they have the option of making a same or opposite platform change at Salford Crescent or Bolton - that luxury simply doesn't exist if you live near one of the CLC shacks that's losing half its service.

I suppose democracy really is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried

 

[Roast Veg]

Does anybody have a concise service pattern for B+ to hand?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Big up my fellow Knutsfordians for making up 3% of the total responses, showing how needed the 2nd train is. I'm still kicking myself for missing the deadline .

In other news, I wonder if Mr Craig Browne of CEC & TfN will ever fully disclose his interests in South Wales? Me thinks that'll be a negatory.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, of course they would be inconvenienced without a direct train to Castlefield. But at least they have the option of making a same or opposite platform change at Salford Crescent or Bolton.

I wonder how many postings I have seen on this website and SkyScraper City commenting on the unsuitability of Salford Crescent, with its very narrow platform and total lack of station facilities as an interchange station.

 

[Ianno87]

.

There doesn't appear to be any suggestion of a Manchester Piccadilly - Hazel Grove service? It does specifically note that the Wigan North Western - Hazel Grove services cannot run.

Does anybody have a concise service pattern for B+ to hand?

There is a map in the document showing the service pattern.

I wonder how many postings I have seen on this website and SkyScraper City commenting on the unsuitability of Salford Crescent, with its very narrow platform and total lack of station facilities as an interchange station.

It's not as narrow as it used to be, almost all the platform buildings were cleared a few years ago. And the very point of the station is as an interchange - not to be hanging around (changing at Bolton is also an alternative in some cases if you want facilities)

 

[daodao]

A disappointing compromise, but I can see why they did it given the types of feedback that they were getting (e.g. seven times more respondents from Southport than from Liverpool), they are bound to listen to those who make the most noise

Some of the changes are definite improvements, trying to have simple half hourly services on a number of corridors (Liverpool - Sheffield, Atherton - Todmorden, Blackburn - Rochdale, Blackpool - Airport etc)

There's also some scope to improve/extend some services without it impacting upon paths in central Manchester (e.g. Buxton going back to half hourly), as I read it?

It's just a shame that they couldn't be a little more "ruthless", given that we'll probably not have another opportunity like this to "rip it up and start again" (i.e. the twin changes of Covid and GBR created the best opportunity to rewrite timetables rather than the bodge job we've had over the years where we couldn't tweak things because of franchise commitments, so the only option was the bodge of adding an extra hourly service here and an extra hourly service there, which is what caused the congestion that we've seen in recent years!)

I'd certainly be annoyed if I lived at one of the local stations on the Warrington Central line, seeing my service into Manchester cut significantly because Southport services are taking the Oxford Road slot that CLC stoppers used to have - Southport trains have the option of an alternative route into Manchester whilst the CLC obviously doesn't

I agree. It disrupts the 30 minute service pattern on which original options B and C were based to route the Southport trains alternately to Victoria and Oxford Road, and it is clearly at the expense of a regular 30 minute interval service on the eastern half of the CLC line. This has been done on the grounds that these stations are poorly used, but if one doesn't provide a decent service, that is hardly surprising. It is a pity that responses were not inversely weighted by distance from central Manchester, so that the Southport lobby could have been down-weighted and thus over-ruled.

I also have concerns that retaining any trains using the Ordsall curve (particularly the long-distance one from Tees-side) will impact on the eventual performance of option B+.

 

[mike57]

I had a quick skim read of the report, it seems like the Ordsal Chord is now down to 1tph if I've read it right. If so the elephant in the room is definitely white...

 

[Ianno87]

. It is a pity that responses were not inversely weighted by distance from central Manchester, so that the Southport lobby could have been down-weighted and thus over-ruled.

Although careful not to give the residents of Clifton a disproportionate say

I also have concerns that retaining any trains using the Ordsall curve (particularly the long-distance one from Tees-side) will impact on the eventual performance of option B+.

Why would they be any riskier than services from Edinburgh, Cleethorpes or Norwich?

I had a quick skim read of the report, it seems like the Ordsal Chord is now down to 1tph if I've read it right. If so the elephant in the room is definitely white...

Which is a statement nobody would be making if Option B+ was the pattern introduced initially. We'd instead be saying the service was great and we should have more.

 

[mike57]

Why would they be any riskier than services from Edinburgh, Cleethorpes or Norwich?



Which is a statement nobody would be making if Option B+ was the pattern introduced initially. We'd instead be saying the service was great and we should have more.

Any services using the Castlefield corridor are going to be at the mercy of disruption both in the Castlefield area and in the areas they travel through, and as we saw in 2018 once it all unravels its very difficult to get the service back to timetable without cancellations or turning short and even then it can take most of the day, and the impact rapidly spreads out across the North because of the range of destinations that use the corridor. Maybe the report should have also considered the action to be taken once disruption occurs, a proper emergency timetable, rather than the adhoc current arrangements. I know some train companies have 'disruption' timetables, to me it makes sense, as disruption will happen however good the infrastructure is, better to plan for it, so that at least a basic service can be offered on all routes. I know it wont cover every eventuality but at least the most likely/common scenarios can be considered.

 

[Starmill]

There is a map in the document showing the service pattern.

Indeed there is. It's at the top of page 23. And if you look closer at it you'll notice it does not contain any references to Hazel Grove.

But Hazel Grove could still be served with 2tph by Buxton DMUs, which, to answer the original question, would be four car not six.

 

[Ianno87]

Any services using the Castlefield corridor are going to be at the mercy of disruption both in the Castlefield area and in the areas they travel through, and as we saw in 2018 once it all unravels its very difficult to get the service back to timetable without cancellations or turning short and even then it can take most of the day, and the impact rapidly spreads out across the North because of the range of destinations that use the corridor. Maybe the report should have also considered the action to be taken once disruption occurs, a proper emergency timetable, rather than the adhoc current arrangements. I know some train companies have 'disruption' timetables, to me it makes sense, as disruption will happen however good the infrastructure is, better to plan for it, so that at least a basic service can be offered on all routes. I know it wont cover every eventuality but at least the most likely/common scenarios can be considered.

The report has tackled the first step; having a stable level of train service on the corridor that gives capability to naturally recover late running without having to resort to cancellations near immediately; by providing spare capacity for performance recovery.

Indeed there is. It's at the top of page 23. And if you look closer at it you'll notice it does not contain any references to Hazel Grove.

Exactly; there are no services on the map from the corridor to Hazel Grove, Buxton, or Alderley Edge.

On Page 20 there is also the statement:

The use of a Castlefield Corridor path for the Southport train means that the Wigan to Hazel Grove peak only service cannot run. Hazel Grove is instead served by trains to and from Manchester Piccadilly only.

 

[Starmill]

On Page 20 there is also the statement:

I know. And that statement also doesn't clarify whether there will be frequent Hazel Grove terminators or not.

I get the feeling they're hedging their bets.

Which is a statement nobody would be making if Option B+ was the pattern introduced initially. We'd instead be saying the service was great and we should have more.

To be fair, the report is pretty clear that a Wigan - Hazel Grove service was sacrificed in order to permit Southport to Manchester Oxford Road services. It's uncertain if extending the second North TP service to Manchester Airport would have been possible if the second service from Southport went to Stalybridge via Manchester Victoria instead, but I don't think it matters. The benefits of either enormously outweigh any conceivable benefit of an Oxford Road terminator from Southport.

 

[Verulamius]

Indeed there is. It's at the top of page 23. And if you look closer at it you'll notice it does not contain any references to Hazel Grove.

But Hazel Grove could still be served with 2tph by Buxton DMUs, which, to answer the original question, would be four car not six.

This is the map on page 23

 

[Ianno87]

I know. And that statement also doesn't clarify whether there will be frequent Hazel Grove terminators or not.

It is implied (but not explicitly stated) that the service pattern at Hazel Grove will be (off-peak at least)

-1tph Hazel Grove-Piccadilly
-1tph Buxton-Piccadilly

I think at this point "how to serve Hazel Grove" then becomes a separate "question" to Castlefield, once it is split off from the corridor, hence why the report becomes slightly silent on it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is a statement nobody would be making if Option B+ was the pattern introduced initially. We'd instead be saying the service was great and we should have more.

I think people would have been questioning why such an extraordinarily expensive piece of infrastructure was built and electrified for one DMU per hour.

And that's my view - plan it, but do the Castlefield work first so it can be used for a frequent service i.e. 4tph or more when it opens.

 

[Ianno87]

I think people would have been questioning why such an extraordinarily expensive piece of infrastructure was built and electrified for one DMU per hour.

And that's my view - plan it, but do the Castlefield work first so it can be used for a frequent service i.e. 4tph or more when it opens.

Well that was the plan - build it with an initial service, and follow on with the Castlefield works.

I'm guessing (for whatever reason) the chord was easiest to deliver first (e.g. more offline construction etc etc or whatever).

Could also be that the Chord enabled service changes without Picc platforms, but not the other way around, so better from a benefits realisation perspective too to do the chord first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that was the plan - build it with an initial service, and follow on with the Castlefield works.

Backwards to me. The Castlefield works would have caused overall advantage even without it so those should have been done first.

 

[Ianno87]

Backwards to me. The Castlefield works would have caused overall advantage even without it so those should have been done first.

There would be no advantage in terms of realising any new or amended train paths, without the chord to supplement this (I.e. give the extra trains somewhere to go)

 

[Bletchleyite]

There would be no advantage in terms of realising any new or amended train paths, without the chord to supplement this (I.e. give the extra trains somewhere to go)

Improved punctuality and reliability isn't "sexy" but is a benefit. We really do need to understand this - we do it for roads, after all. The M6 Toll was purely a "punctuality" build - the T junctions (!) are incidental because as it's there you might as well.

 

[Jozhua]

I wonder how many postings I have seen on this website and SkyScraper City commenting on the unsuitability of Salford Crescent, with its very narrow platform and total lack of station facilities as an interchange station.

To be fair, there is enough space to add another island at crescent - that might work quite well as you could have dedicated platforms for both Wigan-bound and Bolton-bound services.

One might want to sort it so that each set of platforms deals with trains only going in one direction though, so that passengers generally do not have to go over the stairs to change.

I had a quick skim read of the report, it seems like the Ordsal Chord is now down to 1tph if I've read it right. If so the elephant in the room is definitely white...

I think people would have been questioning why such an extraordinarily expensive piece of infrastructure was built and electrified for one DMU per hour.

And that's my view - plan it, but do the Castlefield work first so it can be used for a frequent service i.e. 4tph or more when it opens.

This is what happens when you only build half a project...the half that is built only ends up being used to a very small part of its potential. I sure hope our government doesn't do the same with any other major infrastructure projects, by mothballing large important segments to save on cost...

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is what happens when you only build half a project...the half that is built only ends up being used to a very small part of its potential. I sure hope our government doesn't do the same with any other major infrastructure projects, by mothballing large important segments to save on cost...

While I support building all of HS2 it isn't comparable - the main benefits are gained by taking the fast services off the WCML south of Rugby. The other benefits are good but less good. The effects of Ordsall without the Castlefield work have been overwhelmingly negative.

What happened with Ordsall is more like if HS2 was being cut back to Birmingham-Crewe.

 

[Ianno87]

Improved punctuality and reliability isn't "sexy" but is a benefit. We really do need to understand this - we do it for roads, after all. The M6 Toll was purely a "punctuality" build - the T junctions (!) are incidental because as it's there you might as well.

Pre-Chord; the timetable was reasonably robust; it didn't particularly need additional infrastructure capability over and above what it already had. It had enough so that delay could be recovered. You need enough capability for recovery, but not excessive amounts (as per the UIC-406 capacity standard).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pre-Chord; the timetable was reasonably robust; it didn't particularly need additional infrastructure capability over and above what it already had. It had enough so that delay could be recovered.

It hasn't been adequately robust since the 1998 timetable in my view. Northern never quite recovered from that, though admittedly it wasn't just Castlefield but rather underresourcing (units and crews) in all areas.

 

[Ianno87]

It hasn't been adequately robust since the 1998 timetable in my view. Northern never quite recovered from that, though admittedly it wasn't just Castlefield but rather underresourcing (units and crews) in all areas.

What is "adequately robust"? Personally (I've said before) I think Dec 2008 balanced capacity and performance reasonably well. And yes, you need all the supporting acts to contribute too - you do not build infrastructure just to cover for other operational "sloppiness".

 

[LOL The Irony]

Northern never quite recovered from that, though admittedly it wasn't just Castlefield but rather underresourcing (units and crews) in all areas.

I do feel like Arriva were a fall guy so the Government didn't have to admit Northern's failings were also on them, in that Castlefield upgrades being mothballed exacerbated the problems.

 

[TheSel]

A disappointing compromise, but I can see why they did it given the types of feedback that they were getting (e.g. seven times more respondents from Southport than from Liverpool), they are bound to listen to those who make the most noise

To be fair, it is difficult to listen to those who remain silent - be it through choice, apathy or the inability to speak out.

 

[py_megapixel]

I do feel like Arriva were a fall guy so the Government didn't have to admit Northern's failings were also on them, in that Castlefield upgrades being mothballed exacerbated the problems.

Arriva Rail North cheaped out on a lot of things, but I'd agree with you that this mess cannot be attributed to them. Realistically the Ordsall chord was always going to be a white elephant without the Castlefield infrastructure improvements, and without sufficient electrification to allow high-performance EMUs to operate the majority of services.