Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[daodao]

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.

The CLC line service has been adversely affected in option B+, just to satisfy a few vocal lobbyists from an unimportant town many miles from Manchester. They should have been ignored. Many consultations weight local responses versus those from far afield. It is not as if Southport wouldn't have had a 2 tph service to Manchester.

A half-hourly stopping rail service is far more useful than an hourly one in an urban area. The bus services in the Urmston/Flixton area are not all that frequent, generally every 15-30 minutes, so a faster half-hourly train service would be competitive.

 

[Fokx]

People going to Manchester will overwhelmingly use the TPE services to Victoria as they are by far the fastest and have nice* electric** trains.

They won’t and they don’t.

Manchester Piccadilly sees larger amount of passengers travelling to and from the East than Victoria does in terms of passenger numbers (not including those to/from Liverpool)

Quite a large number of Manchester to York passengers will be sold an advance for the Huddersfield stopper and then the Redcar service.
For Newcastle the same happens with the Hull train it directs you to swap at Huddersfield.

Passengers favour journey times over new trains vs refurbished ones.

Piccadilly provides better options for connectivity south, to/from the Airport from places like Hull and Huddersfield (due to journey times) and it’s closer to the leisure amenities (NQ, Primark etc), Piccadilly bus station, national express coach station, universities and the nightlife scene

 

[Ianno87]

TThey should have been ignored. Many consultations weight local responses versus those from far afield. It is not as if Southport wouldn't have had a 2 tph service to Manchester.

Not that I necessarily agree with the Southport decision, but I don't know of that ever being the case in a rail timetable consultation. A timetable impact is system-wide, so it should not be locally focused. As the Southport vs CLC debate highlights, serving one impacts the other, and that can be the case anywhere in the country.

They won’t and they don’t.

Manchester Piccadilly sees larger amount of passengers travelling to and from the East than Victoria does in terms of passenger numbers (not including those to/from Liverpool)

Quite a large number of Manchester to York passengers will be sold an advance for the Huddersfield stopper and then the Redcar service.
For Newcastle the same happens with the Hull train it directs you to swap at Huddersfield.

Passengers favour journey times over new trains vs refurbished ones.

Piccadilly provides better options for connectivity south, to/from the Airport from places like Hull and Huddersfield (due to journey times) and it’s closer to the leisure amenities (NQ, Primark etc), Piccadilly bus station, national express coach station, universities and the nightlife scene

Most passengers will do whatever the journey planner tells them to do, influenced by fares. Planning a journey from Liverpool (Any Station) to Manchester (Any Station) right now gives:



Slow down the CLC service and passengers will gravitate to Victoria instead, unless they specifically want a connection from Piccadilly.

 

[Starmill]

I think it's much less of a concern that the CLC service is negatively impacted than that an opportunity has been missed to utilise a path through Castlefield Jn to Manchester Piccadilly at peak times. If it had been a Wigan North Western to Hazel Grove it could have been, but as a Southport to Manchester Oxford Road it cannot.

As a result a slot at peak times between Salford Crescent and Manchester Victoria is 'orphaned' and another one between Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly. This is genuinely a problem because it means an additional six car train that could have been running now isn't, but to no performance benefit because at peak times the extra CLC services will still run. So there will still be a need to turn 3tph at Manchester Oxford Road which is a nightmare and probably impossible to mitigate.

The report specifically says that a Southport to Hazel Grove isn't feasible because they don't match up, but they haven't released their modelling.

Most passengers will do whatever the journey planner tells them to do, influenced by fares. Planning a journey from Liverpool (Any Station) to Manchester (Any Station) right now gives:

That's not a respesentative sample of 'B+' by any stretch. Firstly it doesn't include 2tph between York (or beyond) and Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria, and second it includes a peak only Northern service to Manchester Victoria.

 

[Ianno87]

I mean the plus side on the CLC is that the 'minor' stations like Urmston suddenly go up in the world in terms of services; they gain direct links to Sheffield etc, and you would get one Urmston-Liverpool 'fast' train per hour (plus a stopper), rather than 2 stoppers all the way.

That's not a respesentative sample of 'B+' by any stretch. Firstly it doesn't include 2tph between York (or beyond) and Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria, and second it includes a peak only Northern service to Manchester Victoria.

I wasn't claiming it was representative. Merely highlight what sort of information passengers actually make their journeys based upon (they don't generally cling to historic timetables or what-used-to-be, but live information at their - literal - fingertips).

There is a case that, with regular fasts via Chat Moss, that capability does not need to be replicated by the CLC, as the load of end-to-end passengers will transfer in part from one route to the other.

 

[Starmill]

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.

If it were up to me, 1tph fast Leeds - Hull and 2tph stopping Manchester Piccadilly - Huddersfield all day would be what I would have chosen. However if it were up to me we wouldn't have ordered five car locomotive hauled trains with the negative capacity implications that would leave behind for Leeds - Dewsbury / Huddersfield. Even with the need to change trains at Leeds, Hull to Manchester Victoria would then be a minute or two quicker than it is today to Manchester Piccadilly at 'peak' times

 

[Killingworth]

I mean the plus side on the CLC is that the 'minor' stations like Urmston suddenly go up in the world in terms of services; they gain direct links to Sheffield etc, and you would get one Urmston-Liverpool 'fast' train per hour (plus a stopper), rather than 2 stoppers all the way.



I wasn't claiming it was representative. Merely highlight what sort of information passengers actually make their journeys based upon (they don't generally cling to historic timetables or what-used-to-be, but live information at their - literal - fingertips).

There is a case that, with regular fasts via Chat Moss, that capability does not need to be replicated by the CLC, as the load of end-to-end passengers will transfer in part from one route to the other.

Speaking from Sheffield I'm hearing all the talk of extra stops west of Manchester with a degree of foreboding, every one a potential threat to overall punctuality on a route that's not only delayed by Castlefield congestion. See a few weeks performance on eastbound Liverpool - Norwich/Nottingham trains measured at Sheffield. Some of the Hope Valley issues will be resolved in 2 years time. However, if smaller stations west of Manchester get stops some to the east are wanting them too, like Hazel Grove, Chinley, Hope, Dore, Dronfield...... Bang goes any express timings between the big cities.

 

[Ianno87]

Speaking from Sheffield I'm hearing all the talk of extra stops west of Manchester with a degree of foreboding, every one a potential threat to overall punctuality on a route that's not only delayed by Castlefield congestion. See a few weeks performance on eastbound Liverpool - Norwich/Nottingham trains measured at Sheffield. Some of the Hope Valley issues will be resolved in 2 years time. However, if smaller stations west of Manchester get stops some to the east are wanting them too, like Hazel Grove, Chinley, Hope, Dore, Dronfield...... Bang goes any express timings between the big cities.

But part of the punctuality problem on the CLC is the 4tph service with fasts tightly wedged around the stoppers. Fast misses its path, then its a very slow crawl indeed.

Replace that with 3tph more equalised in speed, and that is eased considerably. One less train per hour *and* less differential between fast and slow services would be quite a significant uplift in resilience.

 

[Starmill]

Replace that with 3tph more equalised in speed, and that is eased that considerably.

A remarkably optimistic view. What it will actually be is two semi-fast trains half an hour apart, with a really slow train just after one of them all day, and another really slow train just after the other one too for several hours morning and evening.

 

[Ianno87]

A remarkably optimistic view. What it will actually be is two semi-fast trains half an hour apart, with a really slow train just after one of them all day, and another really slow train just after the other one for several hours morning and evening.

The semi-fasts will be half an hour apart yes, but if they are slower than today, the stopper will no longer need to be "just after one of them all day" for the timetable to work. There is more flexibility than today.

 

[BrianW]

Not that I necessarily agree with the Southport decision, but I don't know of that ever being the case in a rail timetable consultation. A timetable impact is system-wide, so it should not be locally focused. As the Southport vs CLC debate highlights, serving one impacts the other, and that can be the case anywhere in the country.



Most passengers will do whatever the journey planner tells them to do, influenced by fares. Planning a journey from Liverpool (Any Station) to Manchester (Any Station) right now gives:

View attachment 104035

Slow down the CLC service and passengers will gravitate to Victoria instead, unless they specifically want a connection from Piccadilly.

More of an issue inthe opposite direction- one has to choose whether to aim at Picc or Vic- how long to get to the station; how long to wait if 'target' train is missed?

 

[Starmill]

The semi-fasts will be half an hour apart yes, but if they are slower than today, the stopper will no longer need to be "just after one of them all day" for the timetable to work. There is more flexibility than today.

You can bet that it will be anyway. At most you might gain a couple of extra minutes. With no way to speed up the stopper it is very marginal. That's the point.

 

[jonnyfan]

Comparing the service that stations on the Manchester end of the CLC line gets now and the proposed new service pattern is an improvement on the whole.
Padgate and Flixton still get an hourly service as now.
Glazebrook, Chassen Road, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park see an increase from 2 hourly to hourly off peak.
Birchwood does lose 1tph (unless the 2nd express also stops there)
Irlam and Urmston also keep their 2tph service.
The hourly stopper will actually improve the service for several stations and allow local journeys to be made more easily instead of the mess of skip-stopping on a 2-hourly pattern.
The reduction on the eastern end to 1tph stopping and 2tph fast during the off-peak also increases the reliability on the line, so delays should be less of an issue along there for the fast services heading on to the Hope Valley.

 

[Ianno87]

More of an issue inthe opposite direction- one has to choose whether to aim at Picc or Vic- how long to get to the station; how long to wait if 'target' train is missed?

Does one have to choose Picc or Vic in every case? If you're just going to the generic shopping area (say), whilst Vic is nearer it's rarely worth waiting more than a few extra minutes for a direct train versus going to Oxford Rd/Piccadilly.

You can bet that it will be anyway. At most you might gain a couple of extra minutes. With no way to speed up the stopper it is very marginal. That's the point.

I'm guessing the stopper is still timed as a 15x. Proper Class 195 timings ought to buy a couple more minutes.

Regardless, the biggest resilience benefits are likely to come from effective removal of an entire hourly train path from the route (which have been demonstrated by the modelling undertaken in support of the consultation).

 

[Bletchleyite]

They won’t and they don’t.

Manchester Piccadilly sees larger amount of passengers travelling to and from the East than Victoria does in terms of passenger numbers (not including those to/from Liverpool)

I was specifically replying to a post about Liverpool.

 

[Starmill]

Comparing the service that stations on the Manchester end of the CLC line gets now and the proposed new service pattern is an improvement on the whole.
Padgate and Flixton still get an hourly service as now.
Glazebrook, Chassen Road, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park see an increase from 2 hourly to hourly off peak.
Birchwood does lose 1tph (unless the 2nd express also stops there)
Irlam and Urmston also keep their 2tph service.
The hourly stopper will actually improve the service for several stations and allow local journeys to be made more easily instead of the mess of skip-stopping on a 2-hourly pattern.
The reduction on the eastern end to 1tph stopping and 2tph fast during the off-peak also increases the reliability on the line, so delays should be less of an issue along there for the fast services heading on to the Hope Valley.

It would be better to mothball Trafford Park and Glazebrook than mess around getting them 1tph, especially if it does come at the expense of Birchwood, which is significantly busier than either could hope to be.

 

[Ianno87]

Comparing the service that stations on the Manchester end of the CLC line gets now and the proposed new service pattern is an improvement on the whole.
Padgate and Flixton still get an hourly service as now.
Glazebrook, Chassen Road, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park see an increase from 2 hourly to hourly off peak.
Birchwood does lose 1tph (unless the 2nd express also stops there)
Irlam and Urmston also keep their 2tph service.
The hourly stopper will actually improve the service for several stations and allow local journeys to be made more easily instead of the mess of skip-stopping on a 2-hourly pattern.
The reduction on the eastern end to 1tph stopping and 2tph fast during the off-peak also increases the reliability on the line, so delays should be less of an issue along there for the fast services heading on to the Hope Valley.

The "loser" is Warrington Central, which goes from 4tph to 3tph.

But it's not really 4tph now - it's little better than 2tph as trains catch each other up at each end of the route (other than the convenience of having a train right behind if you just miss one - a luxury few other places have).

Instead Warrington gets closer to an even 3tph service, rather than a bunched 4tph service.

 

[Starmill]

I was specifically replying to a post about Liverpool.

I think the post you were specifically replying to was about Manchester Airport, not Manchester city centre.

 

[jonnyfan]

It would be better to mothball Trafford Park and Glazebrook than mess around getting them 1tph, especially if it does come at the expense of Birchwood, which is significantly busier than either could hope to be.

Indeed, Glazebrook is a bit of a back water, although Trafford Park has more potential with close proximity to large employment areas. I hope that the new hourly service will see some growth in passenger numbers for these smaller stations.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed, Glazebrook is a bit of a back water, although Trafford Park has more potential with close proximity to large employment areas. I hope that the new hourly service will see some growth in passenger numbers for these smaller stations.

Might be worth trialling it, but if not reduce (say) Glazebrook back to a 2-hourly service alternating with one of the Park stations if resilience does prove to be an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be better to mothball Trafford Park and Glazebrook than mess around getting them 1tph, especially if it does come at the expense of Birchwood, which is significantly busier than either could hope to be.

People from Birchwood use the fast, not the stopper.

 

[Starmill]

2tph at Flixton and nothing at Chassen Road would also be superior to 1tph at both. But that's not really the industry is set up sadly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might be worth trialling it, but if not reduce (say) Glazebrook back to a 2-hourly service alternating with one of the Park stations if resilience does prove to be an issue.

Looking at Trafford Park on a map, it is pretty much equidistant from two Metrolink stations, which everyone will likely use instead. So it really serves very little purpose. That being the case what you suggest does make sense.

Humphrey Park is in the middle of a residential area so should be more viable. Though it is quite a rough area, so I don't know how that will affect demand to the city centre.

To be honest you could close Glazebrook, Chassen Road* and Trafford Park without upsetting very many people at all, I reckon. Though Glazebrook might have potential for future housing development.

* Flixton Park takes up much of what would be its western side catchment, and the east side will gravitate to Urmston for a more frequent service.

 

[Starmill]

People from Birchwood use the fast, not the stopper.

I think you've misunderstood the existing timetable structure. At Birchwood there's a fast, stopper that only calls at Irlam and Urmston, i.e. exactly what the new one will do, and a slow stopper.

 

[Ianno87]

Looking at Trafford Park on a map, it is pretty much equidistant from two Metrolink stations, which everyone will likely use instead. So it really serves very little purpose. That being the case what you suggest does make sense.

Humphrey Park is in the middle of a residential area so should be more viable.

Yes the residential catchment of Humphrey Park is considerably the higher of the two.

Would be interested to know if anybody commuting to Trafford Park industrial estate actually uses its namesake Station!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you've misunderstood the existing timetable structure. At Birchwood there's a fast, stopper that only calls at Irlam and Urmston, i.e. exactly what the new one will do, and a slow stopper.

What I meant was that for Birchwood it doesn't matter if there was one slow stopper or two slow stoppers because you wouldn't use either, as arrival at Manchester would be only a minute or two ahead of the next fast and it wouldn't go past Oxford Road.

BR wasn't stupid when it mostly ran the slow stopper only as far as Irlam - it very much reflected demand.

 

[Starmill]

What I meant was that for Birchwood it doesn't matter if there was one slow stopper or two slow stoppers because you wouldn't use either, as arrival at Manchester would be only a minute or two ahead of the next fast and it wouldn't go past Oxford Road.

BR wasn't stupid when it mostly ran the slow stopper only as far as Irlam - it very much reflected demand.

Indeed, but Birchwood may be dropping to effective 1tph in that case. We don't know. Once again the consultation is near useless because it doesn't include any indicative timetables. They're in the model, so why not put the effort in to prepare them for publication?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, but Birchwood may be dropping to effective 1tph in that case. We don't know. Once again the consultation is near useless because it doesn't include any indicative timetables. They're in the model, so why not put the effort in to prepare them for publication?

Agreed. It would have helped with the Southport debate too - if the connections at Salford were good, then only serving Vic would have been less of an issue.

 

[BrianW]

I thought I should make reference to the consultation response document:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1024623/manchester-recovery-task-force-public-consultation-response.pdf

Words from the document are in italics. Highlighting is mine.

13. The timetable options that were consulted on each involved different choices
about the services on offer to passengers. These were essential to improve
performance and provide a better overall passenger proposition, with
changes based on the following principles:
• simplifying the timetable in terms of origins and destinations served;
• moving to a repeating 30-minute pattern of services along each
corridor wherever possible;
• reducing the number of trains using the Castlefield corridor each
hour, compared to the pre-Covid timetable, to a reliable level;
• reducing the number of services running into Manchester Airport
station, which is becoming increasingly congested due to longer
trains;
• changing the pattern of services at Manchester Victoria, to reduce the
number of trains terminating in through platforms;
• reducing the number of trains operating across Manchester between
the north and south of the city, which are the trains most likely to cause
and spread delay whenever there is a problem; and
• reducing the number of trains overall, whilst providing sufficient
capacity for expected demand.

I think that on those criteria, the proposed ‘solution’ is justified.

And on these?
15. Analysis by the MRTF showed that, pre-Covid, three services in particular
were poor performers in central Manchester and had a significant impact on
the transfer of passenger delays across the network. They were:
• Long distance trains from Yorkshire and the North East to south
Manchester and the Airport, via the Ordsall Chord (shown on the map);
• Southport to Alderley Edge trains, which link many congested parts of
the network across the city from Bolton to Stockport; and
• South Yorkshire to Manchester Airport services, which reverse out of
the main platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, using up the equivalent of
two train paths as they must cross over other lines running in the
opposite direction.
16. The MRTF proposals sought to mitigate the impact of these particular
services. This didn’t mean these services should automatically be removed,
but it did mean there must be strong justification for their retention and an
acceptance of the connectivity/performance trade-off or, alternatively,
decisions needed on which other trains should change or cease to run
instead.

Regarding Southport, and Sheffield:
26. The majority of interest among those who replied was on the Southport-
Manchester and Sheffield-Manchester Airport routes.

I note in passing that the MPs for Southport and Buxton (both Conservative) made responses; the MPs for Blackpool and Hazel Grove did not; the five MPs for Sheffield made responses (all Labour).

46. In terms of positive support for the three options set out in the consultation,
among those who responded, the most popular was Option C (30.2% of all
respondents). Options A (8.1%) and B (6.8%) drew less positive support

Option B+ was not consulted upon.

68. The Cleethorpes/Doncaster/Sheffield/Manchester Piccadilly/Manchester
Airport service runs to and from Liverpool Lime Street instead of Manchester
Airport. When combined with the East Midlands Railway services from
Nottingham to Liverpool it gives a regular two trains per hour between
Sheffield and Liverpool. Passengers for the airport will be able to interchange
at Manchester Piccadilly where there will be a train approximately every ten
minutes to the airport. This will be a cross-platform interchange (between
Platform 13 and 14) and will not require passengers to navigate across
Manchester Piccadilly station.
69. Further detailed consideration of direct services from Sheffield to
Manchester Airport indicated that early morning and late evening services
may be possible within the revised timetable structure. It is now proposed
that a small number of direct services are included in the enhanced option,
Option B+.

Hopefully the interchanging passengers will not clog up Platform 13/14. How early and late the possible direct services- will they work for airport workers?

Paragraphs 72- 74 contain 413 words of justification regarding the Southport Services.

Buried in paragraph 77: Affordability - The railway faces significant financial issues

79. The next stage will be to implement the new timetable structure as soon as it
can be ready. Whilst detailed planning continues, there will be a second
round of consultation on the next level of detail (such as precise calling
patterns), which will be led by the train operators. The timetable structure is
now fixed but the operators will endeavour to accommodate adjustments to
the proposed timetable where possible. We expect this consultation to be
launched in autumn 2021.

Looks like the Task Force has done what it set out to do?

 

[Ianno87]

.

Hopefully the interchanging passengers will not clog up Platform 13/14.

Given is probably less than 10 or so people per train changing between Sheffield and the Airport, doubt its a major issue. The bulk of the load on 13/14 from these trains will be those exiting the station or making other interchanges (and even then it's just replacing an existing service in 13/14)

How early and late the possible direct services- will they work for airport workers?

I would assume similar timings to the single early/late service that still run at present. Not that I imagine it's workers these trains are targeted at for a commute from Sheffield.