8 Northern routes to not return to full service in December

[peters]

Hidden on the last page of a TfGM meeting document is a mention that 8 routes won't return to a full timetable in December. The lines are services affected are as below:

Blackburn to Rochdale - hourly service
Preston to Victoria - 2 hourly service
Victoria to Stalybridge - hourly service
Rose Hill Marple to Piccadilly - hourly service
Liverpool to Wigan - hourly service
Buxton to Piccadilly - will remain hourly at off-peak times only
Chester to Manchester via Altrincham - peak time extras won't be reinstated
Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington - 10 fast services daily instead of 18

The Rose Hill mention is particularly interesting after Chris Jackson reassuring passengers they'll get their pre-COVID timetable back in December.

Link to the meeting notes: https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s9425/05 GMTC MRN 20200918 Local Rail Service Performance.pdf

 

[northernchris]

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. For Clitheroe and Buxton it's largely a return to the pre-May 2018 service pattern, and given Northern's current view is that the pre-Covid timetable was too unreliable this isn't a surprise. Preston - Victoria and the Rose Hill routes are a bit of a surprise, but the others seem to make sense if there's a shortfall in traincrew

 

[Geeves]

A train that runs on time once an hour on time is more use than a train every half hour that runs late or is cancelled anyway. Blackburn to Rochdale being a good example. The single line was really making a mess of the timetable and lots of trains never made it past Bolton or didn't make it to Rochdale meaning the stops north of Vic at times had no trains for three hours. The other lines on paper it looks bad but each of them have other trains making stops at the major calling points such as Chorley. St Helens Cental has two trains in ten mins and nothing for an hour so maybe they will look at that!

 

[js1000]

Shame about the Liverpool to Manchester Airport route being reduced to only peak time. That was becoming a successful service for Northern prior to Covid with a mix of long distance travellers to the Airport and commuters going to/from work in Manchester and Liverpool.

Although this is a difficult situation, caution is required as any action that reduces services subsequently lessens the likelihood of travellers (particularly commuters) returning to using the railway. If half-hourly services are reduce to hourly then passengers loads will potentially become higher and which is going to deter many with Covid circulating. Also, it is noted that fares are not being reduced to reflect the reduction in services on these routes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Preston is certainly a surprise

 

[Andy Pacer]

If half-hourly services are reduce to hourly then passengers loads will potentially become higher and which is going to deter many with Covid circulating.

Or the flip side is it will be less attractive and may lose passengers anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preston is certainly a surprise

Preston-Vic is primarily a local service serving Adlington, Blackrod etc. People going to Manchester will use the faster services to Picc which are still there.

 

[peters]

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. For Clitheroe and Buxton it's largely a return to the pre-May 2018 service pattern, and given Northern's current view is that the pre-Covid timetable was too unreliable this isn't a surprise. Preston - Victoria and the Rose Hill routes are a bit of a surprise, but the others seem to make sense if there's a shortfall in traincrew

I'd question whether Northern should be missing out the morning peak time extras on the Mid-Cheshire, given they are used by schoolchildren and there's been complaints from parents about their children having to arrive at school at 8am due to missing services. Even though they would have drawn up their plan before the government told people to start working from home again, the government had given a clear indication that schools would be last to close in the event of further restrictions.

At the May 2018 change it seemed the extra Buxton services got added in ahead of Greenbank and Macclesfield services because it was easier for Northern to path a half-hourly service on the Buxton line. I heard Northern secured paths at around 10 past and twenty to the hour for Mid-Cheshire services to leave Piccadilly but in the other direction the paths they secured were around 25 past for the stopper leaving Greenbank and around quarter to for the semi-fast, meaning the semi-fast would have arrived at Piccadilly only around 10 minutes after the stopper. However, when they realised they didn't have resources for all the additional services to start at May 2018 they prioritised the Buxton service due to having good paths agreed and had promised to add in the Greenbank and Macclesfield services in Dec 2018. That was until Network Rail said no more additional services. Consequently, I wonder if now is a good time to review how many paths each route gets rather than letting the Buxton line have all the limited extra paths just because it was easier for the timetable planners.

Shame about the Liverpool to Manchester Airport route being reduced to only peak time.

10 services instead of 18 should be more than just peak times. Maybe something like hourly from 7am-10am, most (not all) hours from 10am-4pm, hourly from 4pm-7pm and then no evening service?

 

[northernchris]

A train that runs on time once an hour on time is more use than a train every half hour that runs late or is cancelled anyway. Blackburn to Rochdale being a good example.

Completely agree on this, however the flip side is it can mess up connections to other services extending journey times and deterring travel. It would also be useful if the rolling stock saved was used on the same routes to maintain capacity - I understand the Rochdale - Clitheroe is still 3 carriages

10 services instead of 18 should be more than just peak times. Maybe something like hourly from 7am-10am, most (not all) hours from 10am-4pm, hourly from 4pm-7pm and then no evening service?

Northern's latest thing seems to be to run with 2 diagram left, so it may be the case that off peak 2 of the 3 will run, increasing to full service at the peaks

 

[Hugo3000]

Completely agree on this, however the flip side is it can mess up connections to other services extending journey times and deterring travel. It would also be useful if the rolling stock saved was used on the same routes to maintain capacity - I understand the Rochdale - Clitheroe is still 3 carriages

Clitheroe - Rochdales are restricted to three carraiges between Blackburn and Clitheroe and in all honesty, for the moment at least, don't need more than three.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's not just TfGM's area either. My local line (Saltburn - Darlington) remains hourly as has been the case since the service cuts were first made during the early stages of the pandemic. Looking forward in RTT there doesn't appear to be any sign of a reinstatement of the second service per hour. I have to say I'm beginning to wonder if this is stealthy and permanent service cut!

 

[Geeves]

If the demand returns they know exactly how the timetable and train planning works, small mercies at least. The passenger numbers are so low right now running half hourly on some lines would be a total waste.

 

[peters]

It's not just TfGM's area either. My local line (Saltburn - Darlington) remains hourly as has been the case since the service cuts were first made during the early stages of the pandemic. Looking forward in RTT there doesn't appear to be any sign of a reinstatement of the second service per hour. I have to say I'm beginning to wonder if this is stealthy and permanent service cut!

I can't see anything in RTT for 14th December and beyond for that line or any of the others I tried. The lines mentioned in the original post are ones which Northern have said will still not get a full service, even when other lines return to their full service on the December timetable change date.

 

[Eloise]

No passengers services published for Dec 20 timetable yet.

 

[158756]

A train that runs on time once an hour on time is more use than a train every half hour that runs late or is cancelled anyway. Blackburn to Rochdale being a good example. The single line was really making a mess of the timetable and lots of trains never made it past Bolton or didn't make it to Rochdale meaning the stops north of Vic at times had no trains for three hours.

That is the single line which had £14m spent on it a few years ago specifically to enable a half hourly service to run. Yet more taxpayers money Network Rail may as well have set on fire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the single line which had £14m spent on it a few years ago to enable a half hourly service to run. Yet more taxpayers money Network Rail may as well have set on fire.

I think that's very unfair to them - how could they have possibly known a major health crisis was around the corner?

 

[158756]

I think that's very unfair to them - how could they have possibly known a major health crisis was around the corner?

The post I was quoting said the single line was making a mess of the timetable - Covid has not caused that, if anything timekeeping should have improved with fewer passengers.

 

[Greybeard33]

Shame about the Liverpool to Manchester Airport route being reduced to only peak time. That was becoming a successful service for Northern prior to Covid with a mix of long distance travellers to the Airport and commuters going to/from work in Manchester and Liverpool.

10 services instead of 18 should be more than just peak times. Maybe something like hourly from 7am-10am, most (not all) hours from 10am-4pm, hourly from 4pm-7pm and then no evening service?

Northern's latest thing seems to be to run with 2 diagram left, so it may be the case that off peak 2 of the 3 will run, increasing to full service at the peaks

Of the services listed in the OP, the Liverpool - Airport via Warrington is the only one that passes through the Castlefield corridor. Maybe some of the 8 omitted services might be in the peaks, to help avoid a return to pre-Covid levels of congestion and delays?

Pre-Covid, some of the fast morning peak services from/to Liverpool used to terminate at/start from Oxford Road or Wilmslow, because of lack of platform capacity at the Airport.

 

[Ianno87]

The post I was quoting said the single line was making a mess of the timetable - Covid has not caused that, if anything timekeeping should have improved with fewer passengers.

Depends whether its the single line causing the problem or the single line working fine but amplifying delays on the wider network. Suspect the latter.

 

[tbtc]

It's not just TfGM's area either. My local line (Saltburn - Darlington) remains hourly as has been the case since the service cuts were first made during the early stages of the pandemic. Looking forward in RTT there doesn't appear to be any sign of a reinstatement of the second service per hour. I have to say I'm beginning to wonder if this is stealthy and permanent service cut!

I wonder what the old regime at Abellio/ Serco/ Arriva, who put up with years of criticism for every little perceived failure (even when they were complying with the franchise requirements) will be thinking when they see the way that people meekly accept these long term cuts imposed by a "nationalised" Northern?

Just imagine if the old TOCs had reduced routes like Rose Hill Marple to just a token service; there'd be demonstrations, there'd be petitions, there'd be outrage about these wicked private companies cutting valuable public services.

I appreciate that Covid means some cuts are made, but people seem to acquiesce to reductions imposed by a "nationalised" railway a lot easier than when big bad profit hungry private companies do it.

 

[AMD]

Preston is certainly a surprise

Extra calls (mainly in peak) have been added to other services to compensate. But the stoppers are a service that has seen one of the most drastic drops in passenger numbers, in that when it was running hourly (until recently) it was barely carrying any passengers across the whole journey between Preston and Vic (outwith the peak services).

 

[peters]

Of the services listed in the OP, the Liverpool - Airport via Warrington is the only one that passes through the Castlefield corridor. Maybe some of the 8 omitted services might be in the peaks, to help avoid a return to pre-Covid levels of congestion and delays?

I thought the hourly Airport to Liverpool service replaced the hourly TransPennine service on that route meaning it shouldn't be one of the problem services.

 

[swissrailpassion]

Hull-Scarborough is hourly (a 2019 improvement) with a couple of extras from Bridlington (usually hourly to York). Loadings are not too bad on the 3 car turbos. So around a 55% service.

 

[jfollows]

Pre-Covid, some of the fast morning peak services from/to Liverpool used to terminate at/start from Oxford Road or Wilmslow, because of lack of platform capacity at the Airport.

Still does (Wilmslow, that is), although maybe not after the December timetable. 1H99 06:15 Liverpool to Wilmslow ( https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/L18000/2020-09-25/detailed ) forms 1F92 07:49 Wilmslow to Liverpool ( https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/L17911/2020-09-25/detailed ). I think this is the only one though, then and now, that turns round at Wilmslow.

 

[Acfb]

I'd question whether Northern should be missing out the morning peak time extras on the Mid-Cheshire, given they are used by schoolchildren and there's been complaints from parents about their children having to arrive at school at 8am due to missing services. Even though they would have drawn up their plan before the government told people to start working from home again, the government had given a clear indication that schools would be last to close in the event of further restrictions.

At the May 2018 change it seemed the extra Buxton services got added in ahead of Greenbank and Macclesfield services because it was easier for Northern to path a half-hourly service on the Buxton line. I heard Northern secured paths at around 10 past and twenty to the hour for Mid-Cheshire services to leave Piccadilly but in the other direction the paths they secured were around 25 past for the stopper leaving Greenbank and around quarter to for the semi-fast, meaning the semi-fast would have arrived at Piccadilly only around 10 minutes after the stopper. However, when they realised they didn't have resources for all the additional services to start at May 2018 they prioritised the Buxton service due to having good paths agreed and had promised to add in the Greenbank and Macclesfield services in Dec 2018. That was until Network Rail said no more additional services. Consequently, I wonder if now is a good time to review how many paths each route gets rather than letting the Buxton line have all the limited extra paths just because it was easier for the timetable planners.



10 services instead of 18 should be more than just peak times. Maybe something like hourly from 7am-10am, most (not all) hours from 10am-4pm, hourly from 4pm-7pm and then no evening service?

I think there was a franchise requirement to run 2tph to New Mills Newtown and trains can't be turned back there and so were extended to Buxton anyway.

I accept that 2tph is in the 'nice to have' category though and that train length is more important and journey times and reliability a bigger issue on the line.

 

[peters]

I think there was a franchise requirement to run 2tph to New Mills Newtown and trains can't be turned back there and so were extended to Buxton anyway.

I accept that 2tph is in the 'nice to have' category though and that train length is more important and journey times and reliability a bigger issue on the line.

Half-hourly to Greenbank and Macclesfield were also requirements set by DfT & Rail North and Arriva included an additional Hazel Grove in their bid as well (which wasn't required.) Arriva weren't able to get them all included in their May 2018 timetable change but they added Buxton on the basis that the others would follow in December. That didn't happen and Network Rail are saying it can't happen now, so the question is really which of these are most deserving of the one path which was made available:

Hazel Grove - which has high annual usage itself but already had 2 services an hour without the additional Buxton service, while the stations between Hazel Grove and Stockport are relatively low usage compared to others with only one train an hour.
Buxton - Could have 2 services per hour without an additional path in to Manchester being used by extending the Hazel Grove service. Annual usage around 346,000 journeys, while New Mills Newtown has 232,000. Other stations have low usage.
Macclesfield - Obviously plenty of services serve Macclesfield itself, as well as Cheadle Hulme so the main benefits would be local connectivity and relieving overcrowding on existing Stoke stopper. Poynton has annual usage of 233,000.
Greenbank - Knutsford has around 500k journeys per annum, Greenbank and Northwich combined have 450k, Hale and Altrincham combined have around 600k combined. Improved rail service would likely reduce the number of people from Cheshire driving to Altrincham or Timperley and getting the Metrolink from there.

I think if only one path is available the obvious solution is:
1. 2 trains per hour to Buxton, no additional services to Hazel Grove except at peak time where possible. Put the proposed 4 car bi-mode trains on Buxton services.
2. Using the freed up path introduce the additional Greenbank service.
3. Lengthen Stoke to Manchester services and try to add in additional peak time Macclesfield services if possible.

 

[daodao]

Half-hourly to Greenbank and Macclesfield were also requirements set by DfT & Rail North and Arriva included an additional Hazel Grove in their bid as well (which wasn't required.) Arriva weren't able to get them all included in their May 2018 timetable change but they added Buxton on the basis that the others would follow in December. That didn't happen and Network Rail are saying it can't happen now, so the question is really which of these are most deserving of the one path which was made available:

Hazel Grove - which has high annual usage itself but already had 2 services an hour without the additional Buxton service, while the stations between Hazel Grove and Stockport are relatively low usage compared to others with only one train an hour.
Buxton - Could have 2 services per hour without an additional path in to Manchester being used by extending the Hazel Grove service. Annual usage around 346,000 journeys, while New Mills Newtown has 232,000. Other stations have low usage.
Macclesfield - Obviously plenty of services serve Macclesfield itself, as well as Cheadle Hulme so the main benefits would be local connectivity and relieving overcrowding on existing Stoke stopper. Poynton has annual usage of 233,000.
Greenbank - Knutsford has around 500k journeys per annum, Greenbank and Northwich combined have 450k, Hale and Altrincham combined have around 600k combined. Improved rail service would likely reduce the number of people from Cheshire driving to Altrincham or Timperley and getting the Metrolink from there.

I think if only one path is available the obvious solution is:
1. 2 trains per hour to Buxton, no additional services to Hazel Grove except at peak time where possible. Put the proposed 4 car bi-mode trains on Buxton services.
2. Using the freed up path introduce the additional Greenbank service.
3. Lengthen Stoke to Manchester services and try to add in additional peak time Macclesfield services if possible.

Minor stations in rural Cheshire (Disley/Poynton-Prestbury inclusive/Ashley and beyond) do not need more than 1 tph, other than at peak periods to/from M/c. The stations between Stockport and Hazel Grove inclusive serve an urban area within Greater M/c and the line is electrified only as far as Hazel Grove, so an additional 1 tph emu is practicable and reasonable as far as Hazel Grove.

 

[peters]

Minor stations in rural Cheshire (Disley/Poynton-Prestbury inclusive/Ashley and beyond) do not need more than 1 tph, other than at peak periods to/from M/c.

The idea isn't for all stations between Greenbank and Navigation Rd to get 2 trains an hour (except at peak time) but for one service to skip the low usage stations - Lostock Gralam, Plumley, Mobberley, Ashley and Navigation Road so that the second service only serves the urban areas of Northwich, Knutsford and Altrincham where there's a lot of demand even at off-peak times. I also don't think Prestbury was on the list of stations to get additional services.

Do you have something against public transport being available in Cheshire? In another thread you said that ideally Cheshire East shouldn't fund bus services but when I asked if that should extend to the bus services TfGM subside around Altrincham and Hale you declined to comment. Whether you like it or not recent figures show some of the stations on the Mid-Cheshire line have significantly more demand than many of the well served stations in Greater Manchester e.g. Knutsford's usage is high compared to stations like Rose Hill Marple, Romiley, Bredbury, Reddish North, Davenport, Woodsmoor... I could go on. Just because some randomly drawn line puts a town either inside or outside of the Greater Manchester boundary shouldn't determine whether or not that town gets a good public transport link.

the line is electrified only as far as Hazel Grove, so an additional 1 tph emu is practicable and reasonable as far as Hazel Grove.

I took that in to consideration when saying the bi-mode trains should be used. It sounds absolutely ridiculous to say a service should use a valuable path to terminate just outside Stockport because that's where the wires end. Either extend the wires or use bi-mode trains to make it a more useful service!

 

[daodao]

The idea isn't for all stations between Greenbank and Navigation Rd to get 2 trains an hour (except at peak time) but for one service to skip the low usage stations - Lostock Gralam, Plumley, Mobberley, Ashley and Navigation Road so that the second service only serves the urban areas of Northwich, Knutsford and Altrincham where there's a lot of demand even at off-peak times. I also don't think Prestbury was on the list of stations to get additional services.

Do you have something against public transport being available in Cheshire? In another thread you said that ideally Cheshire East shouldn't fund bus services but when I asked if that should extend to the bus services TfGM subside around Altrincham and Hale you declined to comment. Whether you like it or not recent figures show some of the stations on the Mid-Cheshire line have significantly more demand than many of the well served stations in Greater Manchester e.g. Knutsford's usage is high compared to stations like Rose Hill Marple, Romiley, Bredbury, Reddish North, Davenport, Woodsmoor... I could go on. Just because some randomly drawn line puts a town either inside or outside of the Greater Manchester boundary shouldn't determine whether or not that town gets a good public transport link.



I took that in to consideration when saying the bi-mode trains should be used. It sounds absolutely ridiculous to say a service should use a valuable path to terminate just outside Stockport because that's where the wires end. Either extend the wires or use bi-mode trains to make it a more useful service!

Public transport is really only viable for major urban areas and key interurban links. There is a dramatic decline in population density beyond the boundaries of conurbations and Hazel Grove is a good example of a boundary point beyond which population density drops off precipitously. On the south edge of the Manchester conurbation, the obvious termini for high frequency electrified public transport (Altrincham/Parrs Wood/Hazel Grove) are the same as they were 100 or so years ago in the days of the first generation tramways. With the development of the Wythenshawe overspill estate and Ringway, the other obvious terminus point is now Manchester Airport. The electrification of the railway lines beyond Cheadle Hulme was a consequence of their role as a long distance link to London rather than purely local traffic.

With respect to the point about local bus services around Altrincham (routes 280-287), TfGM could save money by cancelling them in the evenings when they appear merely to carry fresh air. Knutsford is not a particularly large town and 1 tph should suffice.

 

[jfollows]

When I commuted into Manchester in the 1970s there was an hourly stopping service to Macclesfield, but this was significantly augmented at rush hour, there were stopping trains leaving Piccadilly for Macclesfield (some terminated there) at 14:43, 15:53 (for some reason, off-pattern), 16:10, 16:43, 17:02, 17:15, 17:30, 17:43 & 17:58.

Whether the demand for service frequency withered with increasing car ownership (for example), or was stifled by sacrificing the stopping services to enable more frequent fast services I don't know. Probably some of both. For sure, in the 1970s, there were only fast services to Macclesfield at 15:35, 16:23, 17:12 & 18:28 (the first three nominally being "pick up only" at Macclesfield, but I used them all the time to get off there without difficulty), not a touch on today's frequency.

The morning down services were perhaps more concentrated in time, but still pretty frequent from memory. They had no fast services to contend with at all, it was too early for trains even from Birmingham to interfere at that time.

I can't imagine anything like the same kind of commuter demand for Bramhall & Poynton coming back again now. Northern didn't help by dropping the one extra service they could have run, so it's been an hourly xx.44 stopping service to Macclesfield even in the rush hour in recent years. Is this supply or demand constrained? If there were more services would there be more users of them, or would the users simply spread the load across more trains?