Chiltern wanting to get hold of new stock

[tbtc]

Not to my knowledge. I endorse the error, even though inadvertently wildly exaggerated, as it is about time that Northerners are stirred into realising what a bad hand we are being dealt by London centric civil servants. The quality of trains up here is **** compared to the Southeast. Northwest electrification was only authorised to mop up surplus 319s from Thameslink. Writing down their value by scrapping would have raised the cost on paper of replacement 700s and the whole Thameslink project until some Herbert at the DafT decided financially and politically that the North is the best place for old, unwanted (s)crap.

The case isn't helped by hysteria about what is actually happening. The professional journalist from The Journal should have checked the facts, rather than relying on an MP's statement for an unbiased representation. Poor journalism, giving people the wrong impression of what is going on.

There are nine older two-coach DMUs moving south, just after ten new four-coach EMUs are introduced - not that people would realise this from the "ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TRAINS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM THE ENTIRE NORTH OF ENGLAND TO SERVE DAVID CAMERON'S CONSTITUENCY INSTEAD".

Exaggerating the situation just makes those of us in "the north" look petty - fight back with facts instead of hyperbole.

 

[3141]

We're drifting off-topic, but if you go back fourteen years much of the south east still had slam-door stock, some of it over 40 years old, and the only post-privatisation EMUs south of the Thames were the 458s which were so unreliable that Stagecoach were saying they would get rid of them as soon as the lease was up.

The fact is that at any one time there will be some areas that have a higher proportion of newer stock and others where a higher proportion is older. Twenty years ago suburban services out of Liverpool Street had large numbers of class 321s that were only five years old or less and even the class 315s were under fifteen years old. Today Greater Anglia passengers complain that it's so long since they had any new trains.

 

[deltic08]

The case isn't helped by hysteria about what is actually happening. The professional journalist from The Journal should have checked the facts, rather than relying on an MP's statement for an unbiased representation. Poor journalism, giving people the wrong impression of what is going on.

There are nine older two-coach DMUs moving south, just after ten new four-coach EMUs are introduced - not that people would realise this from the "ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY TRAINS ARE BEING TAKEN FROM THE ENTIRE NORTH OF ENGLAND TO SERVE DAVID CAMERON'S CONSTITUENCY INSTEAD".

Exaggerating the situation just makes those of us in "the north" look petty - fight back with facts instead of hyperbole.

No, that was not said. I think the quote was "170 modern trains" as was written in the transcription. He did not write "One hundred and seventy modern trains. That would have been misleading.

No, it makes the Southeast look selfish and greedy taking trains desperately needed in Yorkshire and Northeast where crush loading is just as acute as in London. Here are some facts from the Office of National Statistics. £2700 per head transport spend in the Southeast and London compared to £300 per head in Yorkshire and Humber and only £5 per head in the Northeast. Would you call this equality? I don't.

The journalist did check his facts delivered from the horses mouthes in a Westminster debate. Where do you suggest he should have checked the facts instead?

I am a southerner by birth but refuse to sit back and quietly accept ever increasing North/South inequality. 2080 new carriages for London and Southeast over the next four years compared to an unknown quantity of resuscitated thirty year-old 319 cast-offs just sticks in the throat. As yet, 319 refurb has not been approved either by Porterbrook or Northern. TPEx would not even have had 350/4s if Euston commuters hadn't required more 350s.

 

[edwin_m]

The journalist may have reported accurately what the MP was transcribed as saying, but the transcription itself was ambiguous - presumably the sound recordings are available for checking too? This might have lead to a more interesting "MP being disingenious/stupid" angle for the journalist!

 

[Nym]

But that wouls require said journalist to give a damn...

 

[tbtc]

No, that was not said. I think the quote was "170 modern trains" as was written in the transcription. He did not write "One hundred and seventy modern trains. That would have been misleading

The quote in The Journal is:

Ministers were told it was disgraceful that they were planning to take 170 modern trains from across the entire North of England and send them south, serving constituencies such as the prime minister’s

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/rush-privatise-east-coast-means-6831033

...to me that looks like a professional journalist has given the impression to their readers that one hundred and seventy modern trains would be leaving northern England and moving south (in areas such as Witney).

it makes the Southeast look selfish and greedy taking trains desperately needed in Yorkshire and Northeast where crush loading is just as acute as in London

Only one of the ten busiest trains in the UK is in northern England (the last TPE arrival in Leeds from Huddersfield in the early-ish morning before the fifteen minute daytime frequency kicks in).

Here are some facts from the Office of National Statistics. £2700 per head transport spend in the Southeast and London compared to £300 per head in Yorkshire and Humber and only £5 per head in the Northeast. Would you call this equality? I don't

What are these figures? Railway infrastructure investment? Or total railway subsidy (inc all of those "40 pence a mile" costs of the average Northern journey)? Or do these figures cover all transport?

And, for the record, I wouldn't expect investment in mass transportation to be exactly the same up and down the UK - some connurbations are more suitable for it than others - just like I wouldn't expect the Environment Agency to spend the same in inner cities that they do in rural areas. Spend money where its needed.

The journalist did check his facts delivered from the horses mouthes in a Westminster debate. Where do you suggest he should have checked the facts instead?

Politicians aren't always trustworthy or experts on every subject - this may come as a shock to some - so if a politician gives the impression that one hundred and seventy modern trains would be leaving northern England, I'd expect someone employed as a journalist to use the internet to double-check - there's a big difference between nine and the figure quoted in the newspaper.

Look at how some journalists have gone through the Budget to work out the "real terms" effects of some announcements, the trust costs of some things - they didn't just say "well, Mr Osbourne said that everything is okay - surely we can trust him".

When people get fed such shoddy information, no wonder they end up with a chip on their shoulder about "the south".

 

[DY444]

Just thought I'd chuck this into the melting pot. From Roger Ford's latest Informed sources preview:

"Ridership growth is not universal

Everyone knows that the railways are enjoying unprecedented growth. In its latest publication the Rolling Stock Strategy Steering Group fills factories with the promise of extra trains needed to meet ridership growth forecasts.

But when ‘everyone’ knows something it’s time to run a sense check. And the Office of Rail Regulation’s latest passenger rail usage statistics, covering Quarter 3 of the current year provided the spur.

In the accompanying blurb new records were hailed. Franchised passenger km were up 2.8% year-on-year setting a new record. Franchised passenger journeys rose by 4.5%– another record. Ticket sales were the best quarter’s revenue since ORR’s statistics began.

This month’s column ends with the sense check. It breaks down the quarterly ridership figures for the last three years by service group.

And it shows that Intercity and Regional ridership has been flat-lining while London & South East has risen by 9% since since Quarter 3 2011-12. I’m hoping to follow this up in more detail."

My emphasis

 

[deltic08]

We're drifting off-topic, but if you go back fourteen years much of the south east still had slam-door stock, some of it over 40 years old, and the only post-privatisation EMUs south of the Thames were the 458s which were so unreliable that Stagecoach were saying they would get rid of them as soon as the lease was up.

The fact is that at any one time there will be some areas that have a higher proportion of newer stock and others where a higher proportion is older. Twenty years ago suburban services out of Liverpool Street had large numbers of class 321s that were only five years old or less and even the class 315s were under fifteen years old. Today Greater Anglia passengers complain that it's so long since they had any new trains.

I don't deny that age of stock is cyclic in different areas, but the average age of Northern stock is 24 years whereas the average age of stock in the Southeast and London is 18 and due to become 6 years old after delivery of Thameslink and Xrail stock in 2018. Transfer of 319s to Northern by 2018 will make 24 years become 28 years because no new stock is proposed in that timescale. As I posted earlier, full 319 refurb hasn't been approved by ROSCO or franchisee yet.

I feel sorry for Welsh valley commuters who will get 315s, again Southeast cast-offs, older than DMUs and Pacers currently in use around Cardiff.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The quote in The Journal is:



--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just thought I'd chuck this into the melting pot. From Roger Ford's latest Informed sources preview:

"Ridership growth is not universal

Everyone knows that the railways are enjoying unprecedented growth. In its latest publication the Rolling Stock Strategy Steering Group fills factories with the promise of extra trains needed to meet ridership growth forecasts.

But when ‘everyone’ knows something it’s time to run a sense check. And the Office of Rail Regulation’s latest passenger rail usage statistics, covering Quarter 3 of the current year provided the spur.

In the accompanying blurb new records were hailed. Franchised passenger km were up 2.8% year-on-year setting a new record. Franchised passenger journeys rose by 4.5%– another record. Ticket sales were the best quarter’s revenue since ORR’s statistics began.

This month’s column ends with the sense check. It breaks down the quarterly ridership figures for the last three years by service group.

And it shows that Intercity and Regional ridership has been flat-lining while London & South East has risen by 9% since since Quarter 3 2011-12. I’m hoping to follow this up in more detail."

My emphasis

Taking the ORR station usage figures from 2004 to 2012, footfall in the Leeds City Region grew 54% in the same timescale that the rest of the UK grew only 39%. In the 2012/13 figures, published last month, growth in the Leeds City Region had fallen to a low of 2.8% from a high of 10.7% in 2011/12. Unless I am mistaken, 10.7% is higher than the 9% you quote for the same accounting year. Growth on LUL in that year was only 3%.

Transport Minister, Justine Greening, promised in 2011 that trans-Pennine electrification in 2018 would provide 8% additional seats on that route from Leeds in the peaks. Had she taken notice of the 2011 growth figures of 11% on the Huddersfield-York route she would not have made such a stupid claim as 8% would have been used up seven years before delivery.

It was these growth figures that persuaded the Chancellor to approve trans Pennine electrification in 2011 and hopefully electrification from Leeds to York via Harrogate, Sheffield, via Barnsley, Halifax via Bradford and Hebden Bridge via Dewsbury in 2015.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Travel in the North of England has flatlined.... The statistics state that. You cannot escape that fact. And your list of electrification schemes by 2025 ( i presume you dont mean 2015!) is fantasy at best.

 

[pemma]

Travel in the North of England has flatlined.... The statistics state that. You cannot escape that fact. And your list of electrification schemes by 2025 ( i presume you dont mean 2015!) is fantasy at best.

How do you know it's flat lined though?

Taking my own local station's passenger numbers
2005/06- 0.241 million
2006/07- 0.250 million
2007/08- 0.291 million
2008/09- 0.311 million
2009/10- 0.304 million
2010/11- 0.362 million
2011/12- 0.399 million
2012/13- 0.454 million

When the 09/10 figures were released you could have said passenger numbers had flat lined based on what the 3 years in red show. However, in the following 3 years there was around 50% growth, partly due to local bus services being cut back and partly due to a decrease in unemployment levels.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How do you know it's flat lined though?

Taking my own local station's passenger numbers
2005/06- 0.241 million
2006/07- 0.250 million
2007/08- 0.291 million
2008/09- 0.311 million
2009/10- 0.304 million
2010/11- 0.362 million
2011/12- 0.399 million
2012/13- 0.454 million

When the 09/10 figures were released you could have said passenger numbers had flat lined based on what the 3 years in red show. However, in the following 3 years there was around 50% growth, partly due to local bus services being cut back and partly due to a decrease in unemployment levels.

I presumed Roger Ford statistics were correct to be honest. I know that overall RR is level but i am aware that some places are increasing and to be fair those places are getting investment. I was simply pointing out that it does go to show why NSE gets all the investment and former RR don't, hence making his list of electrification by 2025 a bit fantasy.

 

[tbtc]

Travel in the North of England has flatlined.... The statistics state that. You cannot escape that fact

Any increase in "the north" appears to be more about changing the methods of counting rather than any significant increase in passenger numbers - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=97198 - see the first post on this thread re West Yorkshire/ Greater Manchester's new ways of counting

Meanwhile, Chiltern (who haven't moved any goalposts) saw a 6.8% increase in twelve months (with more to come when the Oxford link is open).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you know it's flat lined though?

Taking my own local station's passenger numbers
2005/06- 0.241 million
2006/07- 0.250 million
2007/08- 0.291 million
2008/09- 0.311 million
2009/10- 0.304 million
2010/11- 0.362 million
2011/12- 0.399 million
2012/13- 0.454 million

When the 09/10 figures were released you could have said passenger numbers had flat lined based on what the 3 years in red show. However, in the following 3 years there was around 50% growth, partly due to local bus services being cut back and partly due to a decrease in unemployment levels.

Obviously there are winners and losers, but the figures for Northern seem to have only raised by 1.5% over the past year - a lot lower than many "southern" franchises.

Population has probably gone up by more than 1.5% in the same time.

 

[thealexweb]

Was it ever actually on the cards that TPE were going to keep the 170s after receiving their 350s? This whole story reeks of opportunist political spin. The real story is that TPE are getting rid of 18, decade-old diesel vehicles and gaining 40 brand new electric vehicles. That's good isn't it?

By some metrics First Transpennine is the most overcrowded TOC in the country. Without the 170s it'll retain that awful title.

 

[pemma]

Any increase in "the north" appears to be more about changing the methods of counting rather than any significant increase in passenger numbers -

In the example I gave a few posts up where I was talking about where a 'flat line' could later result in big growth, that was for a Cheshire station so unaffected by the PTE changes.

It does seem to be a trend in Cheshire that areas which have had bus usage cut back in 2011 have seen a surge in rail usage. Other shire areas (not specifically in the North) haven't yet fully implemented bus subsidy cuts.

EDIT: I started writing this post before post 222 appeared.

Meanwhile, Chiltern (who haven't moved any goalposts) saw a 6.8% increase in twelve months (with more to come when the Oxford link is open).

According to their own statistics TPE carry significantly more passengers then they did a few years. I also imagine that trend will continue until at least 2019. However, I'm not necessarily saying rail passenger numbers will rise, for instance, how many Wigan passengers did TPE used to carry compared to how many they carry now? And that's one reason why people are bothered about TPE losing stock even when they've gained more carriages.

 

[deltic08]

Travel in the North of England has flatlined.... The statistics state that. You cannot escape that fact. And your list of electrification schemes by 2025 ( i presume you dont mean 2015!) is fantasy at best.

Oh Yorkshire Bear, what are we going to do with you. I do mean 2015, it is not fantasy and your statistic assumptions are incorrect.

The decision on electrification of the lines I mentioned will be made by the appointed panel at the end of 2014 with the Chancellor announcing his decision in 2015 for installation in CP6 2019-24. Not 2025.

As a former WYPTE committee member, I have all the station annual usage figures for lines radiating from Leeds since Abellio took over the franchise in 2004. It takes a few hours to work out annual station growth figures and growth by lines but have done it for ten years. In 2011/2012, all lines from Leeds to the West Yorkshire boundary plus Leeds-York/Selby and all of the Harrogate Loop, were above 9.3% annual growth. In the same year Leeds-Bradford-Halifax route annual growth was a huge 21% The overall growth for West Yorkshire was 10.7%.

I also started this before 222 was posted.

This brings growth in West Yorkshire since 2004 to 68% on a supposedly no growth franchise bid. Another DafT monumental forecast cock-up.

In the latest figures, 2012/13, growth has dropped to 2.8% overall from 10.7% the previous year probably due to recession, above inflation fare increases, crush loading in the peaks and poor quality stock but is still appreciable growth and NOT flatlining. At 26.2 million, Leeds is the 3rd busiest station outside London only just behind Birmingham New Street and Glasgow Central with growth of 11% in 2011/12 and 4.1% in 2012/13.

There is a suggestion that the 2011/12 ORR published figures were higher than they should have been due to SteerDavisGleave miscollating supplied data and the 2012/13 figures have been corrected downwards to compensate (Yorkshire Bear and Roger Ford take note). Station footfall is taken from tickets purchased (LENON). Fare evasion, rife on Northern at unmanned stations, will cause inaccuracy.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Oh Yorkshire Bear, what are we going to do with you. I do mean 2015 and your statistic assumptions are incorrect.

The decision on electrification of the lines I mentioned will be made by the appointed panel at the end of 2014 with the Chancellor announcing his decision in 2015 for installation in CP6 2019-24. Not 2025.

As a former committee member of WYPTE, I have all the station annual usage figures for lines radiating from Leeds since Abellio took over the franchise in 2004. It takes a few hours to work out annual station growth figures and growth by lines but have done it for ten years. In 2011/2012, all lines from Leeds to the West Yorkshire boundary plus Leeds-York/Selby and all of the Harrogate Loop, were above 9.3% annual growth. In the same year Leeds-Bradford-Halifax route annual growth was a huge 21% The overall growth for West Yorkshire was 10.7%.

This brings growth in West Yorkshire since 2004 to 68% on a supposedly no growth franchise bid. Another DafT monumental forecast cock-up.

In the latest figures, 2012/13, growth has dropped to 2.8% overall from 10.7% the previous year probably due to recession, above inflation fare increases, crush loading in the peaks and poor quality stock but is still appreciable growth and NOT flatlining. At 25 and a bit million, Leeds is the 3rd busiest station outside London behind Birmingham New Street and Glasgow Central.

There is a suggestion that the 2011/12 ORR published figures were higher than they should have been due to SteerDavisGleave miscollating supplied data and the 2012/13 figures have been corrected downwards. Station footfall is taken from tickets purchased. Fare evasion, rife on Northern at unmanned stations, will cause inaccuracy.

On the first part yes i misread your post. So 2015 it is, i thought you meant completion of the project. I couldn't care less about the growth since 2004. Which i acknowledge fully. What i was saying is you cannot expect huge investment when growth is flatlining. A drop from 10 growth to 2.8% growth is flatlining. Especially when you consider you are only talking about Leeds. Whereas i was talking about a much larger area. I am aware of the growth into Manchester and Leeds. But Liverpool is losing out at 5% a year at the moment, easily countering your 2.8% for the region i was talking about.

 

[deltic08]

On the first part yes i misread your post. So 2015 it is, i thought you meant completion of the project. I couldn't care less about the growth since 2004. Which i acknowledge fully. What i was saying is you cannot expect huge investment when growth is flatlining. A drop from 10 growth to 2.8% growth is flatlining. Especially when you consider you are only talking about Leeds. Whereas i was talking about a much larger area. I am aware of the growth into Manchester and Leeds. But Liverpool is losing out at 5% a year at the moment, easily countering your 2.8% for the region i was talking about.

2.8% growth is 2.8% increase on the previous years figure and is NOT flatlining. 0% growth is flatlining. Leeds is 4.1% growth. Overall growth in West Yorkshire has not flatlined for many many years. I don't particularly care about Liverpool as I have only been there once since the last Deltic run. That is for Liverpudlians to worry about.

I do care about 200%plus load factors on Pacers out of Leeds in the peaks whilst the recommended "safe" figure, i.e. able to stop from 75mph on a greasy rail within signal distances, is 135%. The 17.53 Leeds-Harrogate was the 7th most overcrowded train in the country in 2011/12 and the only one outside London in the top ten. If trains are regularly carrying twice as many passengers as available seats for them then surely investment is necessary to address this. Passengers are wholly paying for the operation of this overloaded service without subsidy with load factors this high. If Northern can overload trains this way without investment then shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank so why invest especially this late in a franchise. So is Government who can then order more new trains for London and Southeast.

 

[pemma]

2.8% growth is 2.8% increase on the previous years figure and is NOT flatlining. 0% growth is flatlining. Leeds is 4.1% growth.

One other thing to note is number of passengers is only part of the picture.

Train A may have 300 passengers making a journey averaging 20 minutes in length.

Train B may have 150 passengers making a journey averaging 40 minutes in length.

But both trains need the similar capacity despite less tickets being sold for the latter.

If the length of journeys people are making increases then it's effectively the same as in increase in passengers and an increase in average journey length is something that some places have seen in recent years.

 

[YorkshireBear]

2.8% growth is 2.8% increase on the previous years figure and is NOT flatlining. 0% growth is flatlining. Leeds is 4.1% growth. Overall growth in West Yorkshire has not flatlined for many many years. I don't particularly care about Liverpool as I have only been there once since the last Deltic run. That is for Liverpudlians to worry about.

I do care about 200%plus load factors on Pacers out of Leeds in the peaks whilst the recommended "safe" figure, i.e. able to stop from 75mph on a greasy rail within signal distances, is 135%. The 17.53 Leeds-Harrogate was the 7th most overcrowded train in the country in 2011/12 and the only one outside London in the top ten. If trains are regularly carrying twice as many passengers as available seats for them then surely investment is necessary to address this. Passengers are wholly paying for the operation of this overloaded service without subsidy with load factors this high. If Northern can overload trains this way without investment then shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank so why invest especially this late in a franchise. So is Government who can then order more new trains for London and Southeast.

Again you are completely missing my point. And your disregard of Liverpool makes me very disinterested in replying to you.

 

[pemma]

As a former WYPTE committee member

I don't particularly care about Liverpool as I have only been there once since the last Deltic run. That is for Liverpudlians to worry about.

With that attitude is it surprising that PTEs are generally hated by people who reside outside their area?

The 17.53 Leeds-Harrogate was the 7th most overcrowded train in the country in 2011/12 and the only one outside London in the top ten.

As a former WYPTE committee member you should know better than to make a claim like that. The 'top 10' list is really a load of rubbish as it only takes in the account the loading on arrival at a major city in the morning peak or loading on departure from a major city in the evening peak. One morning peak Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service is more overcrowded from Altrincham than some of the services mentioned in the top 10 list but because Knutsford and Northwich aren't cities the service doesn't count. According to someone who posted in another thread a similar situation applies with Great Northern services which can empty out before arriving at a central London station in the morning peak or fill up after leaving one in the evening peak.

The Leeds-Harrogate service you mentioned was before Northern got the LM 150s and the Harrogate line has received extra capacity as a result of that, so does the problem you mention on that service even still exist? I think the only North of England service on a more recent list was a Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough service.

 

[deltic08]

One other thing to note is number of passengers is only part of the picture.

Train A may have 300 passengers making a journey averaging 20 minutes in length.

Train B may have 150 passengers making a journey averaging 40 minutes in length.

But both trains need the similar capacity despite less tickets being sold for the latter.

If the length of journeys people are making increases then it's effectively the same as in increase in passengers and an increase in average journey length is something that some places have seen in recent years.

Yes, this statistic was published annually also but the last one I have seen was 2010 where the figure was 33.3 billion passenger kilometres an increase from 29 billion in 2009. A better indicator of increased rail use than station footfall.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With that attitude is it surprising that PTEs are generally hated by people who reside outside their area?



As a former WYPTE committee member you should know better than to make a claim like that. The 'top 10' list is really a load of rubbish as it only takes in the account the loading on arrival at a major city in the morning peak or loading on departure from a major city in the evening peak. One morning peak Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service is more overcrowded from Altrincham than some of the services mentioned in the top 10 list but because Knutsford and Northwich aren't cities the service doesn't count. According to someone who posted in another thread a similar situation applies with Great Northern services which can empty out before arriving at a central London station in the morning peak or fill up after leaving one in the evening peak.

The Leeds-Harrogate service you mentioned was before Northern got the LM 150s and the Harrogate line has received extra capacity as a result of that, so does the problem you mention on that service even still exist? I think the only North of England service on a more recent list was a Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough service.

I didn't make the claim. Again it was a published statistic by the Campaign for Better Transport I think but no doubt I will be corrected on that.

No one is denying that it indicates a load factor at a particular point in a journey. I was illustrating that overcrowding in West Yorkshire can be just as acute as in London yet London has 9x more spend on transport PER HEAD than Yorkshire. Equality with London would see £5.4 billion spend in West Yorkshire alone over the next four years. For this we could see a major upgrade of both trans-Pennine routes not just in electrification but in line speed and capacity increases. With this amount of funding, Leeds and Manchester could be just 30 minutes apart

The worst overcrowded train was a morning service from Reading to Paddington and look what is happening there. £1 billion new station, electrification and now a fleet of new 110mph 377s.

It is hard enough fighting for improvements in my own patch without thinking of other PTEs problems. The Northern Hub has always been about Manchester. Adding Leeds, York and Newcastle was an afterthought to enhance the case for improvements in Manchester. Rail North, if ever implemented, should address compartmentalism.

 

[pemma]

I didn't make the claim. Again it was a published statistic by the Campaign for Better Transport I think but no doubt I will be corrected on that.

If they did use the term "7th most overcrowded train in the country" as you did then they were very careless.

First thing is the list is for England & Wales - not one country, second thing is it only includes morning peak weekday arrivals in major cities and evening peak weekday departures from major cities, so while most overcrowded services fit in to that category some don't.

It is hard enough fighting for improvements in my own patch without thinking of other PTEs problems. The Northern Hub has always been about Manchester. Adding Leeds, York and Newcastle was an afterthought to enhance the case for improvements in Manchester. Rail North, if ever implemented, should address compartmentalism.

I don't agree with that statement. The Manchester or Northern Hub or whatever you want to call it as always had improvements on the Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds corridor as a very high priority, moving eventually to 6tph. Manchester-Liverpool getting 4 fast trains per hour (2 semi-fast via Warrington, 2 express via Earlestown) was an afterthought and only came after DfT had announced plans for North TPE electrification and a target 3 hours journey time between Liverpool and Manchester Newcastle.

 

[Aictos]

only came after DfT had announced plans for North TPE electrification and a target 3 hours journey time between Liverpool and Manchester

Surely some mistake, it's about 3 hours from London to Newcastle and that's much further then Liverpool to Manchester unless you're aiming at a maximum speed of 5mph between the two Northern cities

 

[pemma]

Surely some mistake, it's about 3 hours from London to Newcastle and that's much further then Liverpool to Manchester unless you're aiming at a maximum speed of 5mph between the two Northern cities

I don't think it is. The pre-electrification time will be just over 3 hours for Newcastle-Liverpool when it's re-introduced as a direct service in a few weeks: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G33927/2014/05/26/advanced

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't think it is. The pre-electrification time will be just over 3 hours for Newcastle-Liverpool when it's re-introduced as a direct service in a few weeks: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G33927/2014/05/26/advanced

Your first post said target time of 3 hours from Liverpool to MANCHESTER. He was mocking you

We knew you meant Newcastle.

 

[transmanche]

Surely some mistake, it's about 3 hours from London to Newcastle and that's much further then Liverpool to Manchester unless you're aiming at a maximum speed of 5mph between the two Northern cities

The current Newcastle-Manchester Airport services takes around 2h35 to reach Manchester Piccadilly. The new Newcastle-Liverpool service will be around 15 mins faster to Manchester (although it will serve Manchester Victoria rather than Piccadilly) - with journey times to Liverpool being 3hrs.

 

[Aictos]

Your first post said target time of 3 hours from Liverpool to MANCHESTER. He was mocking you

We knew you meant Newcastle.

Exactly His first post clearly said LIVERPOOL TO MANCHESTER so can you blame for wanting to check

It's called being sarcastic too......

 

[deltic08]

If they did use the term "7th most overcrowded train in the country" as you did then they were very careless.

First thing is the list is for England & Wales - not one country, second thing is it only includes morning peak weekday arrivals in major cities and evening peak weekday departures from major cities, so while most overcrowded services fit in to that category some don't.



I don't agree with that statement. The Manchester or Northern Hub or whatever you want to call it as always had improvements on the Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds corridor as a very high priority, moving eventually to 6tph. Manchester-Liverpool getting 4 fast trains per hour (2 semi-fast via Warrington, 2 express via Earlestown) was an afterthought and only came after DfT had announced plans for North TPE electrification and a target 3 hours journey time between Liverpool and Manchester Newcastle.

I noticed your error too but didn't go for your jugular as others have done as it was an obvious mistake we all make. Shame on the others, mocking or not.

You are wrong to disagree. The Manchester Hub was conceived by Network Rail in late 2007/early 2008 to sort conflicting moves in Piccadilly throat and congested through platforms for TPEx services to Liverpool and Manchester airport. It was soon realised that due to cost, the improvements would not stand alone in a business case benefit/cost analysis. In 2009 the Northern Hub was announced hoping to "spread the benefit" of Manchester bottle-neck improvements over a larger area and other northern cities of Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle. This raised the benefit/cost ratio to an acceptable level for Government backing. I can't remember if TP electrification was part of the plan in 2009 or added later.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You are wrong to disagree. The Manchester Hub was conceived by Network Rail in late 2007/early 2008 to sort conflicting moves in Piccadilly throat and congested through platforms for TPEx services to Liverpool and Manchester airport. It was soon realised that due to cost, the improvements would not stand alone in a business case benefit/cost analysis. In 2009 the Northern Hub was announced hoping to "spread the benefit" of Manchester bottle-neck improvements over a larger area and other northern cities of Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle. This raised the benefit/cost ratio to an acceptable level for Government backing. I can't remember if TP electrification was part of the plan in 2009 or added later.

Added later.
Notionally it improves the Hub business case (means they can omit some capacity extras like extra loops via Standedge, and get better productivity).
On the other hand it gives more headaches elsewhere until it's all wired.

By the way, once the PTEs start fighting each other, we're all doomed.
Rail North somehow has to float over all that and take the wider view.
Whatever you think of DfT, they are at least even-handed across the north if not between north and south.

 

[pemma]

You are wrong to disagree. The Manchester Hub was conceived by Network Rail in late 2007/early 2008 to sort conflicting moves in Piccadilly throat and congested through platforms for TPEx services to Liverpool and Manchester airport. It was soon realised that due to cost, the improvements would not stand alone in a business case benefit/cost analysis. In 2009 the Northern Hub was announced hoping to "spread the benefit" of Manchester bottle-neck improvements over a larger area and other northern cities of Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle. This raised the benefit/cost ratio to an acceptable level for Government backing. I can't remember if TP electrification was part of the plan in 2009 or added later.

A lot of the Yorkshire improvements included in the Northern Hub originated from the Yorkshire RUS such as platform 9 at Huddersfield, additional EMUs for the Leeds area*, more trains between Huddersfield and Leeds etc, longer trains on the Harrogate line, longer trains between Sheffield and Barnsley etc. The ones that hadn't been implemented yet became Northern Hub plans instead of Yorkshire RUS plans.

* It was proposed that it would be part of a new order for 3 car EMUs for both the North West and Yorkshire which never went ahead but Yorkshire got the 322s in lieu, while the North West hasn't received any extra EMUs to date.