Derby to Crewe - why not Manchester instead

[deltic]

The fastest route from Derby to Manchester tends to be via Stoke despite the slow average speeds. Given the electrification of Stoke to Crewe and the extension of Trent Valley services why not reroute the Derby - Crewe service to Manchester to provide a direct link which would be far more lucrative than serving Crewe?

 

[SargeNpton]

The fastest route from Derby to Manchester tends to be via Stoke despite the slow average speeds. Given the electrification of Stoke to Crewe and the extension of Trent Valley services why not reroute the Derby - Crewe service to Manchester to provide a direct link which would be far more lucrative than serving Crewe?

Are there spare paths on the route between Stoke on Trent and Manchester Piccadilly in which to fit these trains?

 

[Lewisham2221]

The fastest route from Derby to Manchester tends to be via Stoke despite the slow average speeds. Given the electrification of Stoke to Crewe and the extension of Trent Valley services why not reroute the Derby - Crewe service to Manchester to provide a direct link which would be far more lucrative than serving Crewe?

I presume you've not seen the number of people using the service to/from Crewe...

 

[LowLevel]

One Saturday recently I still had 120 passengers on board a morning train to Crewe after Stoke. A far cry from when it was relatively quiet - it now provides a competitive time for journeys between Nottingham, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow, you get Anglo Scottish custom on pretty much every train. Same for North Wales, Chester, Shrewsbury and indeed Manchester Airport.

There are several issues with running via Macclesfield to Manchester, the pathing is tricky, the 2 car or at best 3 car 170s used would soon fill up as a fast service from Stoke which is silly when there's a really good 10 minute or so connection into a 390.

Nottingham to Crewe works really well to provide connections at all 4 main stations (Nottingham, Derby, Stoke, Crewe) and has transformed loadings - the maybe 1/3 full 153s during the day are now busy trains as 2 car 170s and Friday to Monday are often full and standing.

 

[zwk500]

Stoke currently has 2tph to Crewe and 5tph to Manchester. The Newark-Crewe service has a same-platform interchange with 4 of these, with a 1tph stopper using the bay. Given that the 4tph are 2x Avanti and 2x XC, the only path you could reasonably exchange is the 1tph Northern, assuming there are no further paths available from Stockport to Manchester.
However this would mean swapping the Northern shuttle to the Crewe-Alsager-Stoke line, and making the Derby train all-Stopper from Crewe to Stockport to maintain the level of service on each line. It would also mean that Newark, Nottingham and Derby passengers have a much less connectivity overall as instead of having to change for a train every 15 mins to Manchester they have to change for a train every 30-60 mins for Crewe (which is the access to North Wales, the North West, and western Scotland). Not to mention passengers from the East Mids can also go via the Hope Valley to Manchester.
I'm not sure how electrification of either line really changes much given it'll still be a DMU on the EMR train and EMUs on the shuttle.

If there is the capacity available into Manchester, you would need to find some other way of covering Alsager's drop in service (or agree with the relevant bodies for them to lump it, which is unlikely to go down well). And then you'd need to consider if the EMR service could get from Stoke to Manchester and back to hit the return path, or if you'd need a longish layover in Manchester and an additional unit & crew in the cycle, increasing the costs.

 

[hux385]

I definitely agree that serving Crewe is very important. Personally I've made use of the service for Scotland-East Mids journeys! Would there be any benefit in extending beyond Crewe up to Manchester Airport? It would give Derby and Stoke better access to the airport. I'm unsure if there would be a market for it though?

 

[TheBigD]

I definitely agree that serving Crewe is very important. Personally I've made use of the service for Scotland-East Mids journeys! Would there be any benefit in extending beyond Crewe up to Manchester Airport? It would give Derby and Stoke better access to the airport. I'm unsure if there would be a market for it though?

Was tried during Central Trains' tenure. Was withdrawn as the trains were lightly loaded, though that was around 15 years ago.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I'd rather they focused on reinstating the missing diagram from the existing service, the current gaps in the service somewhat dilute the convenience and general "niceness" of having the direct train to Nottingham rather than just the Crewe-Derby.

 

[cle]

This line could in theory have more than one service per hour - a local and then a regional/long distance. As it is a strategic, yet massively underused east-west link between the MML and the WCML/Manchester - which people howl about at the Sheffield level. And yet here is another asset we might explore.

Certain pairs of lesser cities are sacrosanct - but Derby (and Leicester) don't need trains to Manchester, or indeed Glasgow. But Cleethorpes-Manchester and Hull-Liverpool are critical! Lol.

I think more could be done with this line: Re-route the Nottingham-Liverpool via Stoke, and have another Sheffield-Manchester in its place (or send onwards, e.g. Donny, but nix the reversal at Sheffield. This could in theory also run via Crewe, although Crewe is tough to do crossings, but Wilmslow/Manchester is reachable on that island side easily too. Many more options - there are no services from Newark or Lincoln to Manchester either, or up the WCML to Preston and cover the longer standing need for a more local service there (speed up Brum-L'pool?) - plenty of options and many many places which don't have good Stoke, Derby and Nottingham services.

 

[deltic]

I presume you've not seen the number of people using the service to/from Crewe...

24,591 is the number given for Stoke to Crewe, 16,961 Stoke to Derby and 155,518 Stoke to Manchester in a recent Network Rail report although its not clear what period that is for - its to high for a month and far to low for a year

 

[Lewisham2221]

24,591 is the number given for Stoke to Crewe, 16,961 Stoke to Derby and 155,518 Stoke to Manchester in a recent Network Rail report although its not clear what period that is for - its to high for a month and far to low for a year

So Stoke-Manchester outnumbers Stoke-Crewe by (roughly) 6:1 in passenger numbers, and 5:1 in carriages per hour. I'm not sure why you would want or need to divert any resources based on that.

Other than that, without any useful context, those figures are pretty much useless. Assuming that the figure is for total pax travelling both ways, circa 800 per day Crewe-Stoke doesn't sound far too high for a month, it's about 17 pax per train each way, which sounds on the lower side to me.

Manchester is naturally going to have far more passengers than Crewe, it acts as a major destination as well as an interchange, whereas far fewer people will be heading to Crewe as a destination.

 

[Bartsimho]

This line could in theory have more than one service per hour - a local and then a regional/long distance. As it is a strategic, yet massively underused east-west link between the MML and the WCML/Manchester - which people howl about at the Sheffield level. And yet here is another asset we might explore.

Certain pairs of lesser cities are sacrosanct - but Derby (and Leicester) don't need trains to Manchester, or indeed Glasgow. But Cleethorpes-Manchester and Hull-Liverpool are critical! Lol.

I think more could be done with this line: Re-route the Nottingham-Liverpool via Stoke, and have another Sheffield-Manchester in its place (or send onwards, e.g. Donny, but nix the reversal at Sheffield. This could in theory also run via Crewe, although Crewe is tough to do crossings, but Wilmslow/Manchester is reachable on that island side easily too. Many more options - there are no services from Newark or Lincoln to Manchester either, or up the WCML to Preston and cover the longer standing need for a more local service there (speed up Brum-L'pool?) - plenty of options and many many places which don't have good Stoke, Derby and Nottingham services.

The issue with Nottingham to Liverpool via Stoke is that then there is poor service on the Erewash valley line with it being 1tph. Ilkeston and Langley Mill are prime Nottingham commuter territory and it would leave Sheffield to Nottingham with 1tph which is seen as too low. I could see a Leicester to Manchester Airport service being popular though. If it ran almost as an all stops service (Leicester, Syston, Sileby, Barrow-upon-Soar, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Tutbury and Hatton, Uttoxeter, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, Longport, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Sandbach, Wilmslow, Manchester Airport) I could see it being popular.

 

[JonathanH]

If it ran almost as an all stops service (Leicester, Syston, Sileby, Barrow-upon-Soar, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Tutbury and Hatton, Uttoxeter, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, Longport, Kidsgrove, Alsager, Crewe, Sandbach, Wilmslow, Manchester Airport) I could see it being popular.

The journey time on that would be terrible though. I get that people will take a through train when they have luggage but how frequently people go from Leicester to Manchester Airport?

It would be quicker to go via Nuneaton to the North West in any case.

 

[PTR 444]

The issue with Nottingham to Liverpool via Stoke is that then there is poor service on the Erewash valley line with it being 1tph. Ilkeston and Langley Mill are prime Nottingham commuter territory and it would leave Sheffield to Nottingham with 1tph which is seen as too low.

But you could replace these with separate Liverpool - Sheffield and Sheffield - Nottingham services. Some time ago I suggested on these forums doubling the frequency of Liverpool - Cleethorpes and Leeds - Nottingham services to compensate for a diversion of the Liverpool - Nottingham service.

 

[Bartsimho]

But you could replace these with separate Liverpool - Sheffield and Sheffield - Nottingham services. Some time ago I suggested on these forums doubling the frequency of Liverpool - Cleethorpes and Leeds - Nottingham services to compensate for a diversion of the Liverpool - Nottingham service.

That then probably hits the issues of capacity at Dore and North of Sheffield Station

 

[cle]

But you could replace these with separate Liverpool - Sheffield and Sheffield - Nottingham services. Some time ago I suggested on these forums doubling the frequency of Liverpool - Cleethorpes and Leeds - Nottingham services to compensate for a diversion of the Liverpool - Nottingham service.

Yes I would agree with that. And a standard/repeating 30 min service is best practice generally too. It would also cover another TPH for Chesterfield-Sheffield, in case the Liverpool-Notts/Norwich service was changed.

Not sure on the Chesterfield-Manchester need, probably not nothing - but not really important in the grand scheme of things. A solid Manchester-Sheffield service is far more important.

 

[AndrewE]

One Saturday recently I still had 120 passengers on board a morning train to Crewe after Stoke. A far cry from when it was relatively quiet - it now provides a competitive time for journeys between Nottingham, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow, you get Anglo Scottish custom on pretty much every train. Same for North Wales, Chester, Shrewsbury and indeed Manchester Airport.

Care to guess how much more traffic there would be if the Crewe to Scotland sercices were anything like as good as they were a few years ago?

Most of the 2-hourly Crewe-Glasgows, the class 9s, which are pretty full already from the W Midlands - and London (cheap tickets) currently terminate at Preston! Almost no Euston-Glasgow direct trains call at Crewe, and the Edinburghs are heaving as they are the only trains to Edinburgh off the S WCML (Brum to Warrington.) Thus you get everybody from the SW who wants a nicer journey than by XC on them, everybody from Wolves, Salop and that corridor plus all the E midlands people of course.

They are not London-based passengers of course, but it doesn't take much brain to spot the massively suppressed demand. Of course, not being London-focussed, nothing will happen. I don't think the new stock will address any of this capacity shortage.

 

[Ayman Ilham]

I definitely agree that serving Crewe is very important. Personally I've made use of the service for Scotland-East Mids journeys! Would there be any benefit in extending beyond Crewe up to Manchester Airport? It would give Derby and Stoke better access to the airport. I'm unsure if there would be a market for it though?

What about extending it from Crewe to Chester instead? Would add an extra service between Crewe and Chester, as well as improving connectivity between the East Midlands and North Wales. Chester would benefit from more destinations reachable by a direct train too.

 

[Bevan Price]

This line could in theory have more than one service per hour - a local and then a regional/long distance. As it is a strategic, yet massively underused east-west link between the MML and the WCML/Manchester - which people howl about at the Sheffield level. And yet here is another asset we might explore.

Certain pairs of lesser cities are sacrosanct - but Derby (and Leicester) don't need trains to Manchester, or indeed Glasgow. But Cleethorpes-Manchester and Hull-Liverpool are critical! Lol.

I think more could be done with this line: Re-route the Nottingham-Liverpool via Stoke, and have another Sheffield-Manchester in its place (or send onwards, e.g. Donny, but nix the reversal at Sheffield. This could in theory also run via Crewe, although Crewe is tough to do crossings, but Wilmslow/Manchester is reachable on that island side easily too. Many more options - there are no services from Newark or Lincoln to Manchester either, or up the WCML to Preston and cover the longer standing need for a more local service there (speed up Brum-L'pool?) - plenty of options and many many places which don't have good Stoke, Derby and Nottingham services.

As you say, crossing paths at Crewe are difficult, otherwise I would suggest running the Newark/Nottingham services through to Chester (replacing the Crewe / Chester shuttles. The other problem that affects me is due to the Liverpool / Birmingham services being reduced from 2 to 1 per hour, leaving an almost one hour wait at Crewe for passengers from the Liverpool line to the Stoke/Derby line.

 

[cle]

I think sending it across the Crewe formation to Chester is the hardest route to path - it’s the whole WCML.

Much as I’m a fan of Chester having better connections, and removing shuttles.

The easiest is Manchester via Wilmslow, being on that side (and the lowest numbered platform island).

Nottingham - Liverpool via Derby, Stoke and Crewe does connect a few new spots.

 

[Nottingham59]

Nottingham - Liverpool via Derby, Stoke and Crewe does connect a few new spots.

Yeah. And it would allow the Norwich - Liverpool to terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly.

I think sending it across the Crewe formation to Chester is the hardest route to path - it’s the whole WCML.

Yes, but I imagine this would be less disruptive than the Norwich-Liverpool crossing the whole throat of Piccadilly to access the through platforms.

 

[The Planner]

Yeah. And it would allow the Norwich - Liverpool to terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly.

Yes, but I imagine this would be less disruptive than the Norwich-Liverpool crossing the whole throat of Piccadilly to access the through platforms.

Norwich Liverpool doesn't cross the whole throat though. It crosses over from the fasts to the slows at Slade Lane. Crewe would be much worse as it has to cross Crewe South to get to 6, 11 or 12.

 

[edwin_m]

Norwich Liverpool doesn't cross the whole throat though. It crosses over from the fasts to the slows at Slade Lane. Crewe would be much worse as it has to cross Crewe South to get to 6, 11 or 12.

There are several places it can cross over between Stockport and Manchester, so the signallers have some flexibility to keep it moving if it or other trains are delayed. The junctions at Crewe are right at the platform ends or actually within the platforms in some cases, so there is very little flexiblity for alternative routeings.

 

[cle]

Platform 5 at Crewe already does a ton of bi-di heavy lifting.

I do like the idea of Liverpool to Stoke and Derby, and quicker no doubt to Nottingham too. But it’d be very tricky in practice.

 

[DaventryRabbit]

Was tried during Central Trains' tenure. Was withdrawn as the trains were lightly loaded, though that was around 15 years ago.

Was withdrawn late 2003 I believe

 

[SeanM1997]

I see Midland Connect are investigating the feasibility of doubling the frequency of services along this east west corridor, and cutting journey times. Our plans have the potential to significantly increase demand on the line and encourage more people to travel by train instead of use their cars:

Midlands Connect |

www.midlandsconnect.uk

Could an option be utilising the freight/diversion line north of Willington Junction which connects to the Midland Main Line east of Long Eaton, to offer a faster route between Stoke and Nottingham. This would allow for an hourly Crewe-Derby to resume whilst offering an hourly Crewe-Nottingham avoiding Derby, reducing journey times whilst still increasing seats?

 

[43055]

I see Midland Connect are investigating the feasibility of doubling the frequency of services along this east west corridor, and cutting journey times. Our plans have the potential to significantly increase demand on the line and encourage more people to travel by train instead of use their cars:

Midlands Connect |

www.midlandsconnect.uk

Could an option be utilising the freight/diversion line north of Willington Junction which connects to the Midland Main Line east of Long Eaton, to offer a faster route between Stoke and Nottingham. This would allow for an hourly Crewe-Derby to resume whilst offering an hourly Crewe-Nottingham avoiding Derby, reducing journey times whilst still increasing seats?

Oh how I would love to see a half hourly service on the north staffs although it might be better getting the hourly service back first! As for using the Castle Donnington line to Nottingham, there is no real difference in journey times at the moment. Cross Country used this line for diversions during the Derby re-signaling project and most if not all the Nottingham - Birmingham services ran at the same times as if they were using the normal route via Derby.

 

[Bartsimho]

I see Midland Connect are investigating the feasibility of doubling the frequency of services along this east west corridor, and cutting journey times. Our plans have the potential to significantly increase demand on the line and encourage more people to travel by train instead of use their cars:

Midlands Connect |

www.midlandsconnect.uk

Could an option be utilising the freight/diversion line north of Willington Junction which connects to the Midland Main Line east of Long Eaton, to offer a faster route between Stoke and Nottingham. This would allow for an hourly Crewe-Derby to resume whilst offering an hourly Crewe-Nottingham avoiding Derby, reducing journey times whilst still increasing seats?

It probably won't use the diversion line due to it skipping Derby.

It should be good for competing with cars though due to the best road being the A50 and not a motorway although the speed limit is 70 along most of the route so if it's possible to get speeds to 90 or 100mph then it should be competitive end to end even with 30 into Uttoxeter and the 50 curve by Bramshall.