Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[daodao]

So what you're saying is that a relatively low-used local stopping service should have priority over a much higher-used regional service?

Castlefield isn't just about Manchester, it's about the North's entire regional service. Therefore there is no good reason to prioritise views of people who happen to live within Greater Manchester. It would be equivalent to saying "Thameslink is for people from Mill Hill Broadway, not Bedford".

The views of Greater Manchester residents should be prioritised when considering the use of local rail lines. I was not suggesting that Southport should only have 1 tph, but routeing a Southport service onto the Castlefield line has meant that the service on another line will have to be reduced from 2 tph to 1 tph.

The reason the CLC line's local stopping service is poorly used is because it is currently too infrequent; local urban rail services need to have a regular minimum frequency of every 30 minutes to be useful.

 

[Purple Orange]

So what you're saying is that a relatively low-used local stopping service should have priority over a much higher-used regional service?

Castlefield isn't just about Manchester, it's about the North's entire regional service. Therefore there is no good reason to prioritise views of people who happen to live within Greater Manchester. It would be equivalent to saying "Thameslink is for people from Mill Hill Broadway, not Bedford".

Talking of the CLC stopper we have:
Warrington C: will use the half hourly fast
Birchwood: will use the hourly fast
Glazebrook: about as useful as Dent, Bescar Lane and the likes - in the middle of nowhere and very low usage
Irlam, Flixton: probably the two losers, but may receive calls in the fast(s) and certainly used to in the morning peak
Chassen Road: quite near Flixton; due to the presence of a large park has a very small catchment indeed
Urmston: will get a call in one of the fasts I believe
Humphrey Park and Trafford Park: quite close in and well served by buses, unlikely to be busy unless they were Metrolinked with 5tph

So not practically a huge loss, compared with the Liverpool side where things look more like the rest of Merseyrail.

A topic for a different thread, but those stations on the CLC through to Irlam etc are in prime territory for a metro service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree. The views of Greater Manchester residents should be prioritised when considering the use of local rail lines. I was not suggesting that Southport should only have 1 tph, but routeing a Southport service onto the Castlefield line has meant that the service on another line will have to be reduced from 2 tph to 1 tph.

The reason the CLC line's local stopping service is poorly used is because it is currently too infrequent; local urban rail services need to have a regular minimum frequency of every 30 minutes to be useful.

People still often choose frequent buses over half hourly train services on short distance journeys.

A topic for a different thread, but those stations on the CLC through to Irlam etc are in prime territory for a metro service.

This brings us to the (different thread) "Metrolink-Merseyrail" solution for the CLC.

 

[Watershed]

So what you're saying is that a relatively low-used local stopping service should have priority over a much higher-used regional service?

Castlefield isn't just about Manchester, it's about the North's entire regional service. Therefore there is no good reason to prioritise views of people who happen to live within Greater Manchester. It would be equivalent to saying "Thameslink is for people from Mill Hill Broadway, not Bedford".

Talking of the CLC stopper we have:
Warrington C: will use the half hourly fast
Birchwood: will use the hourly fast
Glazebrook: about as useful as Dent, Bescar Lane and the likes - in the middle of nowhere and very low usage
Irlam, Flixton: probably the two losers, but may receive calls in the fast(s) and certainly used to in the morning peak
Chassen Road: quite near Flixton; due to the presence of a large park has a very small catchment indeed
Urmston: will get a call in one of the fasts I believe
Humphrey Park and Trafford Park: quite close in and well served by buses, unlikely to be busy unless they were Metrolinked with 5tph

So not practically a huge loss, compared with the Liverpool side where things look more like the rest of Merseyrail.

Picking up those calls in the "fast" mean that, as stated above, it's no longer really a "fast" service at all. That means that passengers on the much greater flow of Piccadilly/Oxford Rd to Liverpool/Warrington have their journey extended and face overcrowding, in addition to the service being less reliable because the turnarounds are reduced.

It's not a zero-sum game. The number of people whose journeys (and journey opportunities) are negatively impacted far outweighs the benefit that Southport line passengers get.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Picking up those calls in the "fast" mean that, as stated above, it's no longer really a "fast" service at all. That means that passengers on the much greater flow of Piccadilly/Oxford Rd to Liverpool/Warrington have their journey extended and face overcrowding, in addition to the service being less reliable because the turnarounds are reduced.

Overcrowding is solved with more rolling stock. There isn't a short platform issue round there. The Notts is planned to go to 5.158 and the TPE really needs to be double 185s at all times.

One fewer stopper on the route will also improve punctuality; when I used to commute that way in the late 90s, the Notts would often miss its path and end up very late due to ending up behind the Irlam* stopper.

* It only used to do the Warrington-Irlam bit two-hourly, recognising that most of the demand from Irlam is to Manchester, and that Glazebrook could be closed without anyone really noticing (though it is ripe for a new town like development). Edit: though there was also an hourly Liverpool-Airport semifast, which is what the TPE is sort of replacing.

 

[Watershed]

Overcrowding is solved with more rolling stock. There isn't a short platform issue round there. The Notts is planned to go to 5.158 and the TPE really needs to be double 185s at all times.

That's unlikely to be enough when you are combining two fundamentally different markets (longer distance intercity/regional journeys and short hops).

And on those trains where it does suffice, it's still not a great journey experience if your train is crammed full of standees, even if only for 20 minutes.

As I say, Southport are getting their Castlefield service at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately that's politics for you.

 

[Killingworth]

The views of Greater Manchester residents should be prioritised when considering the use of local rail lines. I was not suggesting that Southport should only have 1 tph, but routeing a Southport service onto the Castlefield line has meant that the service on another line will have to be reduced from 2 tph to 1 tph.

The reason the CLC line's local stopping service is poorly used is because it is currently too infrequent; local urban rail services need to have a regular minimum frequency of every 30 minutes to be useful.

I totally agree with the last section. My local service is hourly (and not even every hour) and takes 6-7 minutes smoothly into the city. The bus takes nearer a bouncy 30 minutes. The train does well to be as busy as it is. Half hourly would make a world of difference, not least when a train gets cancelled, as two have been today! (The Manchester lines section is prioriitised with a half hourly service but it doesn't run all the way.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's unlikely to be enough when you are combining two fundamentally different markets (longer distance intercity/regional journeys and short hops).

That's what is termed a "regional express". Plenty of those about (the likes of the Barrows/Windermeres for example), and south TPE is one pretty much throughout, not a more InterCity like service like most of North TPE. The Notts is also a regional express - or rather a string of them stuck together.

 

[Starmill]

Overcrowding is solved with more rolling stock.

More rolling stock which the government won't pay for.

While rolling stock is running between Wigan and Southport at astonishingly low load factors, even on the busiest trains of the day.

The use of four cars when two is quicker and more than sufficient between Wigan and Kirkby is also crazy. A two car shuttle would be quite adequate.

We need to focus on genuine network efficiency. It will make the cuts easier to cope with when they come.

 

[Watershed]

That's what is termed a "regional express". Plenty of those about (the likes of the Barrows/Windermeres for example), and south TPE is one pretty much throughout, not a more InterCity like service like most of North TPE. The Notts is also a regional express - or rather a string of them stuck together.

I think there is quite a difference - in journey experience and crowding - between a train that stops at Picc, Oxford Rd, Warrington Central, South Parkway and Lime Street, and one that also calls at Urmston, Flixton, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington West and Widnes. Which would likely be the minimum acceptable calling pattern to replace the lost connectivity and frequency for the medium sized intermediate stations.

But arguing about semantics doesn't change the reality. All CLC passengers, regardless of whether they take the fast or slow trains, will suffer as a result of the Southport service. Running to Castlefield is a matter of choice for Southport services, but not for CLC ones, and one that benefits far fewer people than it disbenefits.

 

[Ianno87]

The views of Greater Manchester residents should be prioritised when considering the use of local rail lines.

Disagree. The rail network is a nationally-funded asset.

Services should be prioritised by demand, social need, market need and operational considerations (not necessarily in that order)

 

[Bletchleyite]

More rolling stock which the government won't pay for.

While rolling stock is running between Wigan and Southport at astonishingly low load factors, even on the busiest trains of the day.

Reduce them to 2 or 3 then. (Yes, it does mean no 769s, to be fair, but they don't run very much electrified route so are a bit of a white elephant - the Northern routes with big potential bi-mode benefits are the Barrows and Windermeres).

But then this is a slightly different discussion. And I have proposed before that I think Southport would actually accept a drop to clockface hourly provided it went to Castlefield and there was a peak extra each way to Victoria, which is roughly the pre-1998 pattern, so if the trains aren't heavily loaded there's that option too.

The use of four cars when two is quicker and more than sufficient between Wigan and Kirkby is also crazy. A two car shuttle would be quite adequate.

With all vehicles powered, a 4-car is not slower than a 2-car. 769s don't run to Kirkby, which would be the exception.

Merseyrail is the fix for Kirkby-Wigan, really.

 

[Starmill]

With all vehicles powered, a 4-car is not slower than a 2-car. 769s don't run to Kirkby, which would be the exception.

It's slower on the Kirkby line because it requires the guard to lock out the rear two coaches at Pemberton in both directions, although they can also work long train short platform towards Kirkby, not that this saves much time because it has to be done at every station, and some don't work it that way. It also creates an operational restriction on the use of 156s, they have to visit Kirkby with the wheelchair spaces in the centre because otherwise the access doors are off the platform on departure. This of course occasionally does not happen. Quite why that's viewed as OK and the platform at Kirkby wasn't extended I don't know, but I digress, I'm going well off topic.

 

[Ianno87]

It's slower on the Kirkby line because it requires the guard to lock out the rear two coaches at Pemberton in both directions, although they can also work long train short platform towards Kirkby, not that this saves much time because it has to be done at every station, and some don't work it that way. It also creates an operational restriction on the use of 156s, they have to visit Kirkby with the wheelchair spaces in the centre because otherwise the access doors are off the platform on departure. This of course occasionally does not happen. Quite why that's viewed as OK and the platform at Kirkby wasn't extended I don't know, but I digress, I'm going well off topic.

All that is solvable with new rolling stock (with SDO) and/or longer platforms. Rather than thinking it's necessary to perpetuate some archaic method of operation and citing that as "can't be done".

Thameslink had to solve this exact problem for Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All that is solvable with new rolling stock (with SDO) and/or longer platforms. Rather than thinking it's necessary to perpetuate some archaic method of operation and citing that as "can't be done".

Thameslink had to solve this exact problem for Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth.

Absent Merseyrail, using 195s on the Atherton line would be an excellent idea, providing the sort of performance and comfort upgrades that the 172s provided to the (very similar) Birmingham Snow Hill routes pending any decision on electrifying or tramifying it. Those have SDO which could be used towards Kirkby.

(Would be interesting to see, too, if 195s on Southport-Atherton-Vic would prove more popular than 769s on Southport-Oxford Road! )

 

[Starmill]

All that is solvable with new rolling stock (with SDO) and/or longer platforms. Rather than thinking it's necessary to perpetuate some archaic method of operation and citing that as "can't be done".

Thameslink had to solve this exact problem for Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth.

Why though? Just using a two car 150 is enormously cheaper than extending platforms or procuring new trains, and solves all of the problems. There's no deliverability risk either. The only trade-off is that people travelling from Kirkby to Manchester will need to change trains.

 

[Ianno87]

Why though? Just using a two car 150 is enormously cheaper than extending platforms or procuring new trains, and solves all of the problems. There's no deliverability risk either. The only trade-off is that people travelling from Kirkby to Manchester will need to change trains.

Except that the remaining 1980s ex-BR fleet is going to need replacing in the coming years anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why though? Just using a two car 150 is enormously cheaper than extending platforms or procuring new trains, and solves all of the problems. There's no deliverability risk either. The only trade-off is that people travelling from Kirkby to Manchester will need to change trains.

Can Wallgate handle a terminating service in both directions at a similar time?

If not, you're splitting the Atherton service between there and North Western which Atherton users probably won't want.

 

[Starmill]

Except that the remaining 1980s ex-BR fleet is going to need replacing in the coming years anyway.

So what? Use a two car 150 until 2030 and then after that use a two car 195. The point still stands, why would you extend the platforms so that a four car can be used?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that the 1980s ex-BR fleet is going to need replacing in the coming years anyway.

And Northern already have a fleet that due to its door positions, standbacks and high acceleration is very suitable for use on diesel urban local stopping services indeed - the 195s. Long term these routes need electrifying, of course, but for now they could provide a real improvement - and I believe already are on the again-similar Rose Hills and Marples some days. That fleet already has SDO for solving the short platform issue.

Northern could then procure, as is more traditional, a new long-distance bi-mode fleet.

So what? Use a two car 150 until 2030 and then after that use a two car 195. The point still stands, why would you extend the platforms so that a four car can be used?

If you use 195s you don't need to extend platforms as they have ASDO.

Kirkby is a bit moot anyway as the terminus will move to Headbolt Lane in fairly short order.

 

[Starmill]

Can Wallgate handle a terminating service in both directions at a similar time?

If not, you're splitting the Atherton service between there and North Western which Atherton users probably won't want.

Yes, if the train coming from the North is coming from Kirkby. Indeed that was exactly what happened in the 2019 timetable, through services between Manchester and Kirkby were peak only.

Worth noting that the Atherton line is already split anyway between the two Wigan stations.

If you use 195s you don't need to extend platforms as they have ASDO.

Exactly. So why bother? Just don't keep using the four car sprinters it saves a unit diagram and the fuel. There's some real circular reasoning going in this thread.

 

[Ianno87]

Exactly. So why bother? Just don't keep using the four car sprinters it saves a unit diagram and the fuel. There's some real circular reasoning going in this thread.

Except you may not - terminating two services at Wallgate rather than running through, creates two trains with turnround time requirements there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why though? Just using a two car 150 is enormously cheaper than extending platforms or procuring new trains, and solves all of the problems. There's no deliverability risk either. The only trade-off is that people travelling from Kirkby to Manchester will need to change trains.

What is the current demand for rail travel between Kirkby and Manchester as a direct journey? One would assume that the Liverpool core stations are the place the vast majority of Kirkby travellers would aim to use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the current demand for rail travel between Kirkby and Manchester as a direct journey? One would assume that the Liverpool core stations are the place the vast majority of Kirkby travellers would aim to use.

That's always been my view (hence Merseyrail to Wigan being the ultimate fix, which would additionally provide better for Liverpool-Wigan than from Lime St) but at least one poster on here (I forget who) has said that people have chosen where to live based on established patterns (see also Southport-Castlefield) and so it isn't as you might expect.

 

[Starmill]

Except you may not - terminating two services at Wallgate rather than running through, creates two trains with turnround time requirements there.

One in a platform which otherwise sees no use, and the other in the same way that it used to do in 2019, and does anyway at the times of day when it doesn't go to Kirkby. It's really a non-issue.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The mention above of Northwich makes me wonder what the time period involved is for the reinstatement of the recent station building/canopy (?) collapse there.

Works are scheduled to start next year.

Loss of a Manchester Airport service might help him grow Liverpool Airport?

People will still go to Manchester. Either he's been caught with his trollies down or there's something going on behind the scenes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People will still go to Manchester.

People going to Manchester will overwhelmingly use the TPE services to Victoria as they are by far the fastest and have nice* electric** trains. The Chat Moss slow EMU to Castlefield also seems popular, I guess because of cheapo tickets and (ref Southport) a lot of people wanting Castlefield. So I don't think 2-3 minutes on the CLC fasts will really be noticed.

* The vast majority of the public think very positively about 80x.
** Sparks effect vs. rattly DMU

 

[nr758123]

It’s not just on the Southport route where the taskforce has decided to ignore its stated principles of seeking to have a simplified repeating 30-minute service pattern along each corridor.

Both options B & C had a half hourly daytime service for the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, something long overdue. In B+, the proposal for a half hourly service is dropped, seemingly to appease civic leaders in Hull.

The reasons given are pretty unconvincing:

• To manage capacity (hardly likely to be an issue off-peak)
• To protect performance (if there was no significant performance risk when options B & C were drawn up, and nothing else has changed, why has it become an issue now)
• To maintain Hull-Manchester journey time (since it has to fit into a heavily used route from Guide Bridge within a repeating 30-minute pattern, the scope for speeding it up must be negligible).

It looks like one of those trade-offs where one party loses out but the other gains next to nothing.

 

[Watershed]

So I don't think 2-3 minutes on the CLC fasts will really be noticed

It's going to cost 2-3 minutes per station. When you multiply that by the number of additional calls, and by the number of people that travel on CLC fasts....

It’s not just on the Southport route where the taskforce has decided to ignore its stated principles of seeking to have a simplified repeating 30-minute service pattern along each corridor.

Both options B & C had a half hourly daytime service for the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, something long overdue. In B+, the proposal for a half hourly service is dropped, seemingly to appease civic leaders in Hull.

The reasons given are pretty unconvincing:

• To manage capacity (hardly likely to be an issue off-peak)
• To protect performance (if there was no significant performance risk when options B & C were drawn up, and nothing else has changed, why has it become an issue now)
• To maintain Hull-Manchester journey time (since it has to fit into a heavily used route from Guide Bridge within a repeating 30-minute pattern, the scope for speeding it up must be negligible).

It looks like one of those trade-offs where one party loses out but the other gains next to nothing.

Agreed, the reasoning isn't great. Though it should be noted that adding calls impairs turnaround time (and hence performance); there is a certain level of justification in having a 'firebreak' between the peaks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's going to cost 2-3 minutes per station. When you multiply it by the number of people that travel on CLC fasts....

Depends where you call. Urmston, Flixton and Irlam are the key ones, so that's only at most two each to give an hourly fast (which is reasonable as you're dropping an hourly stopper). Glazebrook is worthless, surprised it's still open and Chassen Road has a very small catchment indeed. Birchwood gets a fast already so nobody would use the stopper. The "Parks" are barely used and an hourly stopper is fine for those; stopping fasts there won't increase passenger numbers as they all use the bus. They'd be attracted to a 5tph Metrolink service, but they won't use a half hourly stopper any more than an hourly one.