How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[Moonshot]

That's good news. It will certainly help capacity anyway. Presumably it will be electrified ?

Yes......the brief mentioned 6 car 331s. It looks like the prep work has actually started on the ground as a continuation of the recent blockade for upgrade of track and bridges in that area.

 

[yorksrob]

Splendid stuff !

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looking at the diagram of option B from a few pages back, do we really need two trains an hour from Blackpool to the Airport ? Wouldn't it be better to send one of these towards Victoria and have an extra stopper on the CLC from Liverpool to the airport ?

You want to take one of Northern's busiest services off Castlefield so as to add a stopper that hardly anyone would use? I get the Southport argument, but this is prime stuff.

 

[yorksrob]

You want to take one of Northern's busiest services off Castlefield so as to add a stopper that hardly anyone would use? I get the Southport argument, but this is prime stuff.

How many of those passengers are actually going to our from the airport specifically and how many just need Manchester ?

 

[Glenn1969]

How many of those passengers are actually going to our from the airport specifically and how many just need Manchester ?

It has to terminate somewhere and Manchester lacks sufficient bay platforms so they send them to the Airport. I thought that was the gist of some of these anyway

 

[yorksrob]

It has to terminate somewhere and Manchester lacks sufficient bay platforms so they send them to the Airport. I thought that was the gist of some of these anyway

Yes, that was my understanding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many of those passengers are actually going to our from the airport specifically and how many just need Manchester ?

They want Manchester, and Castlefield is the premium destination - that is what everyone favours. But while Southport is relatively unimportant hence that debate, Blackpool-Manchester is one of Northern's most important routes (possibly the most important on the west side, having formerly been part of the "premium" NorthWest Express service group in the past) and thus absolutely should go to Castlefield, certainly at the expense of a stopping service that was hardly used and isn't being withdrawn completely, just reduced at the few stations that are less important (by way of the semifasts picking up the more important stops).

Victoria is inconveniently located and an unpleasant station to use - it will continue to be seen as secondary.

 

[Purple Orange]

They want Manchester, and Castlefield is the premium destination - that is what everyone favours.

I have to ask why?

If the primary purpose is to have access to Central Manchester, Salford Central and Victoria have excellent locations. Spinningfields would ideally be better served by Salford Central, as would St. John’s, New Bailey and Deansgate; thesecare the areas where the highest paid and biggest concentration of jobs are located. Victoria is better located for the retail area, plus the northern quarter & ancoats.

Invest in Salford Central to bring it up to a standard similar to Oxford Road and the dynamics of the needs of service provision completely changes.

 

[Halish Railway]

Plus, to improve Castlefield performance:

• 
  
• Liverpool - Crewe via Airport becomes Liverpool - Airport (shorter route should improve timekeeping)
• Barrow/Windermere - Airport runs via Bolton not Wigan (quicker route)

Regarding the first highlighted point, it also means that less units will be required for the Chat Moss local service to be worked by 6 coach trains. I can see the second highlighted point resulting in a bit of a disaster as what was once a 6 coach train will become a 3 carriage train, unless the removal of the Manchester Airport to Liverpool via CLC service will provide sufficient units to allow the Manchester Airport to Cumbria service to be 6 coaches as far as Preston, with only 3 carrying on to Cumbria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have to ask why?

If the primary purpose is to have access to Central Manchester, Salford Central and Victoria have excellent locations. Spinningfields would ideally be better served by Salford Central, as would St. John’s, New Bailey and Deansgate; thesecare the areas where the highest paid and biggest concentration of jobs are located. Victoria is better located for the retail area, plus the northern quarter & ancoats.

Invest in Salford Central to bring it up to a standard similar to Oxford Road and the dynamics of the needs of service provision completely changes.

It is certainly contributory that Salford Central and Victoria are both abject dumps. Sure, 13/14 are also nasty, but that's balanced by the rest of Picc being one of the nicest stations in the country with excellent facilities and Oxford Road having its own charm.

 

[faltskog36abba]

It is certainly contributory that Salford Central and Victoria are both abject dumps. Sure, 13/14 are also nasty, but that's balanced by the rest of Picc being one of the nicest stations in the country with excellent facilities and Oxford Road having its own charm.

I would hardly call the Concourse at Victoria a dump, Neither is the entrance to Salford central. Yes the through platforms need attention at Victoria as does Salford central platforms. Oxford road meanwhile., Has hardly any retail outlets, Smelly toilets , Its also badly congested - Especially on the footbridge/ Ticket barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would hardly call the Concourse at Victoria a dump

I would. Its main feature is a gate line and huge set of adverts, and the toilets are awful. Picc also has a far better range of retail. I hate the place.

And that's before you reach the fug of diesel fumes in what feels like a converted car park.

Neither is the entrance to Salford central.

Water pouring through the roof and broken doors last time I went there, and the platforms have all the atmosphere of Brussel-Zuid and practically require a ladder to board.

An utter embarrassment of a station.

Yes the through platforms need attention at Victoria as does Salford central platforms. Oxford road meanwhile., Has hardly any retail outlets, Smelly toilets , Its also badly congested - Especially on the footbridge/ Ticket barriers.

It's not perfect but I'd take it over Vic.

 

[Greybeard33]

Regarding the first highlighted point, it also means that less units will be required for the Chat Moss local service to be worked by 6 coach trains. I can see the second highlighted point resulting in a bit of a disaster as what was once a 6 coach train will become a 3 carriage train, unless the removal of the Manchester Airport to Liverpool via CLC service will provide sufficient units to allow the Manchester Airport to Cumbria service to be 6 coaches as far as Preston, with only 3 carrying on to Cumbria.

The Chat Moss stopper cannot be worked by 6-car Class 323 formations because most of the platforms are not long enough. 6-car Class 331 formations could be used, because these units have Selective Door Opening, but I doubt that this route will get priority for the limited number of these units. 3-car 323s are the most likely traction.

Whether or not capacity on the Preston - Bolton - Manchester line becomes problematic in future depends on the extent to which demand recovers post-pandemic. The line will have 2tph of 6-car Class 331 Airport - Blackpool services and 1tph of 5-car Class 397 Airport - Scotland services in addition to the Airport - Cumbria service. The Victoria - Preston service, which will be withdrawn, was never longer than a 4x20m Class 319 pre-pandemic, so a 3x24m Class 195 might still be sufficient for the Cumbria service. If not, 4-car or 5-car 195 formations might be possibilities.

I doubt that Northern would consider splitting/joining units at Preston, because additional drivers would be needed for the shunting operation. IIRC this was last done years ago before Bolton/Blackpool electrification, when 6-car Class 185s used to split into Cumbria and Blackpool portions at Preston.

 

[Pinus contorta]

The Chat Moss stopper cannot be worked by 6-car Class 323 formations because most of the platforms are not long enough. 6-car Class 331 formations could be used, because these units have Selective Door Opening, but I doubt that this route will get priority for the limited number of these units. 3-car 323s are the most likely traction.

Whether or not capacity on the Preston - Bolton - Manchester line becomes problematic in future depends on the extent to which demand recovers post-pandemic. The line will have 2tph of 6-car Class 331 Airport - Blackpool services and 1tph of 5-car Class 397 Airport - Scotland services in addition to the Airport - Cumbria service. The Victoria - Preston service, which will be withdrawn, was never longer than a 4x20m Class 319 pre-pandemic, so a 3x24m Class 195 might still be sufficient for the Cumbria service. If not, 4-car or 5-car 195 formations might be possibilities.

I doubt that Northern would consider splitting/joining units at Preston, because additional drivers would be needed for the shunting operation. IIRC this was last done years ago before Bolton/Blackpool electrification, when 6-car Class 185s used to split into Cumbria and Blackpool portions at Preston.

Yes the current 1528 Airport to Barrow-in-Furness used to split at Preston into a Blackpool North and a Barrow-in-Furness TPE around 1634. Blocking Platform 3 for a good ten minutes on occasion. I recall boarding it at Wigan one time and sitting right at the front of the train and when we arrived at Preston it was cancelled onwards to Barrow and and over hearing the driver talking to the signalman saying I'm not booked to shunt this train. So it sat blocking P3 for ages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the current 1528 Airport to Barrow-in-Furness used to split at Preston into a Blackpool North and a Barrow-in-Furness TPE around 1634. Blocking Platform 3 for a good ten minutes on occasion. I recall boarding it at Wigan one time and sitting right at the front of the train and when we arrived at Preston it was cancelled onwards to Barrow and and over hearing the driver talking to the signalman saying I'm not booked to shunt this train. So it sat blocking P3 for ages.

Yet in the South East they manage without additional drivers, just the ones for each portion.

It probably took longer to discuss that than do it.

 

[Ianno87]

Yet in the South East they manage without additional drivers, just the ones for each portion.

It probably took longer to discuss that than do it.

I've certainly seen Northampton drivers point blank refuse to do anything over and above what is on their diagram for the day (with the end result of just delaying several of their colleagues trains)

All this is solvable with crew rostered in the right place. At a cost, of course.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I've certainly seen Northampton drivers point blank refuse to do anything over and above what is on their diagram for the day (with the end result of just delaying several of their colleagues trains)

All this is solvable with crew rostered in the right place. At a cost, of course.

387s at Cambridge used to have daft ones. Consider: the assist driver had to go and make the doors up when it joined from Lynn onto an existing unit that sat there. Most of the time that driver continued to London, so instead of the assist driver being in the front ready, the one from Lynn then had to walk down to the front. Often late starts.

365s were vastly easier...

 

[LOL The Irony]

and so Irlam and Urmston will only get 1tph off-peak.

Yet Southport can sustain 2tph? They really haven't thought any of this through. Did it ever cross their minds that they could tell them to do one?

I'm not saying Southport shouldn't get 2tph, as that would make me a hypocrite. However, could they not have dealt with one of the services being a shuttle to Wigan?

 

[Bletchleyite]

1tph from Urmston to Manchester, with all trains wasting time stopping at Humphrey Park and Trafford Park, would be particularly poor.

Trafford Park should really be closed. It has effectively been replaced by Metrolink stops nearby to the north and south and so basically serves no purpose.

Yet Southport can sustain 2tph? They really haven't thought any of this through. Did it ever cross their minds that they could tell them to do one?

I'm not saying Southport shouldn't get 2tph, as that would make me a hypocrite. However, could they not have dealt with one of the services being a shuttle to Wigan?

That would reduce frequency on the busy Bolton or Atherton lines, would it not?

 

[LOL The Irony]

That would reduce frequency on the busy Bolton or Atherton lines, would it not?

You're right. Then I suppose the only way of fixing the CLC stopper problem is to send the EMR service into the Piccadilly trainshed and replace it with a Stockport - Liverpool service.

 

[Ianno87]

Yeah. I now see that this situation is completely hopeless. I wonder if there was a shovel ready project that could be implemented that will fix most of the issues we currently face.

There isn't.

(If you're talking about Picc 15/16, they don't fix the problem, as I explained upthread, from the Congested Infrastructure study NR did in 2019)

Trafford Park lies on the edge of an industrial/commercial area and so likely sees more commuting in rather than out.

My guess is that some or all of Trafford Park, Humphrey Park, Chassen Road, Flixton and Glazebrook are at risk of service cuts.

The only other possible solution would be to put calls in both the Liverpool-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Nottingham services, and solve the Liverpool turnround issue by cross-formimg them - which would mean them having to be the same operator and stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only other possible solution would be to put calls in both the Liverpool-Cleethorpes and Liverpool-Nottingham services, and solve the Liverpool turnround issue by cross-formimg them - which would mean them having to be the same operator and stock.

There would certainly seem to be sufficient 185s to do this, provided the reliability issues of other TPE stock could be solved. I really don't get why it hasn't been done - it was originally the whole point of the Nottingham split on the Norwich service.

 

[LowLevel]

There would certainly seem to be sufficient 185s to do this, provided the reliability issues of other TPE stock could be solved. I really don't get why it hasn't been done - it was originally the whole point of the Nottingham split on the Norwich service.

It was part of a bigger picture - one that I believe is also linked to the ECML recast.

Of course in theory with the brave new world of GBR there is nothing stopping you using either "concession"'s traincrew and/or trains on the service under a shared brand, I suppose. Though cryptic postings in the recruitment forum suggest there might actually be some movement on the EMR Liverpool depot one way or another.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There would certainly seem to be sufficient 185s to do this, provided the reliability issues of other TPE stock could be solved. I really don't get why it hasn't been done - it was originally the whole point of the Nottingham split on the Norwich service.

Considering where the service operates, you can actually make a case for it being EMR with a fleet of 185s. Still maintained at Ardwick, but crewed at Liverpool, Sheffield, Cleethorpes and Nottingham. And then the Barton operation doesn’t look quite so ridiculous...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The service patterns you suggest do indeed make more sense - the pairing of destinations has always been somewhat arbitrary, mainly being based on how the paths happen to work out. And with any luck, we'll see exactly that in a few years' time.

What makes more sense is a "local service for local people" so all TPEs are fast. This whole problem is caused by the move to 5 (and then 6) TPH, when 4 of longer trains (2 Liverpool, 2 Manchester, one to each destination at the east end) would make more sense, allowing space for a proper Hudds-Manchester local service operated by Northern using high acceleration Class 195s instead of sluggish 80x/Mk5s, and in due course by modern commuter type EMUs like 350/2s.

If 1tph isn't enough for Newcastle (probably only Newcastle), you could operate a separate connection at York or Leeds to what is in the opposite half hour to the through service. Or portion work the Scarborough with 185s, with half going north from York as a second Newcastle, but a 6 car formation on the core.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What makes more sense is a "local service for local people" so all TPEs are fast. This whole problem is caused by the move to 5 (and then 6) TPH, when 4 of longer trains (2 Liverpool, 2 Manchester, one to each destination at the east end) would make more sense, allowing space for a proper Hudds-Manchester local service operated by Northern using high acceleration Class 195s instead of sluggish 80x/Mk5s, and in due course by modern commuter type EMUs like 350/2s.

I agree; it's called TransPennine Express it should be fast, 2tph with just Huddersfield between Leeds and Manchester and 2tph with Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury. If there are problems with route/traction knowledge or it's easier to manage when the same company runs both the fasts and the stoppers then let the TPE concession holder run the stoppers using Northern-branded class 185s/350s (bit like TPE crews working the Barton On Humber branch using other operator's stock). The TPE core should be wired ASAP after which there should be enough 802s/mark5s to cover all Redcar, Hull and Scarborough services (Clethorpes too if you get them off Castlefield by terminating at Piccadilly) allowing all the 185s to be dedicated to the Northern brand regardless of who actually crews them.

If 1tph isn't enough for Newcastle (probably only Newcastle), you could operate a separate connection at York or Leeds to what is in the opposite half hour to the through service. Or portion work the Scarborough with 185s, with half going north from York as a second Newcastle, but a 6 car formation on the core.

I would suggest that if you did have a second TPE for any of the destinations (and Newcastle is the most likely to need one as you say) then that 2nd service is the only one that could be more of a stopper.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Flixton has a population around the 11,000 mark, much of which is in residential areas. Is the existing rail service something seem as attractive?

 

[nr758123]

What makes more sense is a "local service for local people"

Nice reference there to Marsden's role in the League of Gentlemen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nice reference there to Marsden's role in the League of Gentlemen.

Well, Hadfield (where most of that was filmed) is on a local rail service from Manchester, albeit not Castlefield!

 

[Purple Orange]

Flixton has a population around the 11,000 mark, much of which is in residential areas. Is the existing rail service something seem as attractive?

I would guess not. The stations on thay line would probably do very well if it had the same service as the Altrincham line.