Is the Alderley Edge stopper really necessary?

[Purple Orange]

There is a long-running thread in another section on the forum covering the 130 bus service, which is terrible and is constantly being chopped and changed. Only today another new variant of the service has been introduced, which is essentially a Macclesfield-Handforth service (the experiment of going to Wythenshawe has been dropped). So, despite the fact that a few years ago it was half-hourly and ran all the way to Manchester from Alderley Edge, no more. But, despite all our observations and complaints, at least the railway sets up a service and sticks with it, the May 2018 stopper has been improved by good effort on the ground despite the bad timetable.

A metrolink-style service from Wilmslow would replace the 130 bus in part, albeit over a different route. I once used the Metrolink service from Manchester Airport to Manchester, and I won't do so again, it takes too long. The rail stopping service from Alderley Edge provides a good and frequent and fast service; I'm lucky living in Wilmslow that I also have faster services but I'm not infrequently on the stopper as well.

That is a shame about the 130 not being extended to Wythenshawe. A better public transport service is needed to the airport from the Wilmslow area (I include Handforth in that area too).

More often than not, I also find myself in the Northern services to/from Wilmslow rather than the Avanti or TfW services and when I am on the 17:55 Piccadilly-Euston service, there is no shortage of people running down the underpass from P4 to P3 to catch the northern service going back the other way.

Given the unreliability of the TfW service (and it’s chronic 2-car trains) I am increasingly of the belief that Wilmslow would be better served with 1 Avanti service and 4 northern stoppers (ideally 6-car 331s).

 

[Philip]

The two main points of this thread are about easing congestion through Castlefield and making better use of the Crewe line as the intercity route that it is. Diverting the TfW to Victoria via Winsford and Warrington with the Alderley Edge terminating at Piccadilly is a plausible idea...there is a market for direct services between Wilmslow and Shrewsbury/Marches, but a direct service to Birmingham (be it a new third service or an existing service diverted from the Stoke line) and then perhaps onto London would be a bigger market and something like this must take precedent on the freed up path, compared to more Northern stoppers.

The Stoke/North Staffs line is not an intercity route like the Crewe route is, more stoppers/regional express on this line with the majority of intercity expresses running on the faster Crewe line would be better in an ideal world.

 

[jfollows]

The two main points of this thread are about easing congestion through Castlefield and making better use of the Crewe line as the intercity route that it is. Diverting the TfW to Victoria via Winsford and Warrington with the Alderley Edge terminating at Piccadilly is a plausible idea...there is a market for direct services between Wilmslow and Shrewsbury/Marches, but a direct service to Birmingham (be it a new third service or an existing service diverted from the Stoke line) and then perhaps onto London would be a bigger market and something like this must take precedent on the freed up path, compared to more Northern stoppers.

As a Wilmslow resident, I have travelled by train to Birmingham far more frequently than I have to Shrewsbury, for sure.

 

[Starmill]

The Stoke/North Staffs line is not an intercity route like the Crewe route is, more stoppers/regional express on this line with the majority of intercity expresses running on the faster Crewe line would be better in an ideal world.

Is this based on anything other than your personal preferences?

 

[The Planner]

The two main points of this thread are about easing congestion through Castlefield and making better use of the Crewe line as the intercity route that it is. Diverting the TfW to Victoria via Winsford and Warrington with the Alderley Edge terminating at Piccadilly is a plausible idea...there is a market for direct services between Wilmslow and Shrewsbury/Marches, but a direct service to Birmingham (be it a new third service or an existing service diverted from the Stoke line) and then perhaps onto London would be a bigger market and something like this must take precedent on the freed up path, compared to more Northern stoppers.

The Stoke/North Staffs line is not an intercity route like the Crewe route is, more stoppers/regional express on this line with the majority of intercity expresses running on the faster Crewe line would be better in an ideal world.

Why? journey time via either route isn't massively different. Diverting TfW via Winsford eats up just as much capacity.

 

[py_megapixel]

Is this based on anything other than your personal preferences?

I was going to say something very similar.

Honestly if you want an extra path north of Cheadle Hulme I can think of a good number of better solutions that getting rid of the stopper. And not bothering is definitely high on that list.

 

[Philip]

Is this based on anything other than your personal preferences?

Speed primarily; the slow trundles through Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Harecastle and Stone; the geography of the line. I'm not saying it is slow but the Crewe route is faster.

 

[py_megapixel]

the Crewe route is faster.

Which means that... the people along it shouldn't recieve a frequent train service?

I am failing to see your logic here.

 

[Philip]

Why? journey time via either route isn't massively different. Diverting TfW via Winsford eats up just as much capacity.

I've explained why, to allow a path for another intercity service to Birmingham via Crewe...since getting rid of a stopper doesn't seem to be the way to go about it, then divert the TfW.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've explained why, to allow a path for another intercity service to Birmingham via Crewe...since getting rid of a stopper doesn't seem to be the way to go about it, then divert the TfW.

Why is that needed? If more capacity is needed to Birmingham then why not just run the existing services at full length (8-10 car formations) rather than the little 4-car voyagers that they have now?

 

[The Planner]

I've explained why, to allow a path for another intercity service to Birmingham via Crewe...since getting rid of a stopper doesn't seem to be the way to go about it, then divert the TfW.

So you remove an intercity service (Which the TfW is, and is one of the highest earning routes TfW has) and send it somewhere which is just as capacity constrained. My actual question was to do with why the North Staffs route isn't "InterCity". Clearly Avanti disagree with you or they would send more via Crewe. Harecastle and Stone are 75mph, not exactly snail pace, as for Cheadle Hulme, I will raise you the approach to Crewe.

 

[Purple Orange]

If TfW was sent to Victoria, I would move one of the XC services over to the Crewe line and give Macc-Piccadilly an additional stopper, giving both branches 2 stoppers per hour. As for Wilmslow, it is fair to aay that the combined market from stations on that line in to Manchester is far bigger than anything to Brum and certainly Shrewsbury.

 

[Starmill]

I've explained why, to allow a path for another intercity service to Birmingham via Crewe...since getting rid of a stopper doesn't seem to be the way to go about it, then divert the TfW.

Yes and you've got it wrong. They've similar speed profiles, all host a mixture of different traffic types, and the route between Manchester and Stafford via Macclesfield is shorter than via Crewe.

 

[jfollows]

Speed primarily; the slow trundles through Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Harecastle and Stone; the geography of the line. I'm not saying it is slow but the Crewe route is faster.

So why does 1R18 go through Macclesfield and Stoke? https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P04001/2020-10-05/detailed
My experience is that the higher speeds possible via Crewe are just about counterbalanced by the greater distance required, it's only something like 5 miles and 3 chains extra but now that the line speeds on the Macclesfield route are greater than the blanket 85mph that I remember from the 1970s it's enough. Of course Stone isn't really a consideration for London trains.

It is also true that when BR tried a fast Manchester-Birmingham service (in the late 1970s), calling at Stockport and Wolverhampton only, it was sent via Crewe. However at xx.27 from Manchester this routing may well have been determined by pathing considerations rather than theoretical route line speed. I can't be sure, but I suspect it went from Manchester to Birmingham on odd hours, eg 11:27 departure, versus the regular service which went via - and called at - Macclesfield, Stoke & Stafford which left at xx.23 on even hours (10:23, 12:23, 14:23 & 16:23). But since there was no 11:23 then I'm not convinced that paths via Stoke weren't available for the new "fast" service. Perhaps Manchester-Birmingham, taking into account Stone and (then) Norton Bridge made enough of a difference to make the Crewe route faster.


EDIT - from 1986 I can see 1A24 E455 + 06:25 Manchester - Euston via Crewe arriving in Stafford in 61 minutes; 1A43 E455 + 12:00 Manchester - Euston via Crewe arriving in Stafford in 56 minutes. Also 1O74 12:15 E350 + Manchester-Brighton taking 62.5 minutes. Stockport + Wilmslow + Crewe calls on 1A24. Stockport + Wilmslow calls on 1A43. Probably Stockport + Macclesfield + Stoke calls on 1O74. So maybe 1-2 minutes faster via Crewe with the same number of stops, with the Stoke service using the old junction at Norton Bridge followed by the crossover at Stafford No. 5, today 1O74 would use the faster line over the top.

Just to add to the last post, in case it's of interest, today rather than in 1986, we have
9R23 06:29 Piccadilly - Stafford 07:22 calling at Stockport, Macclesfield & Stoke, 53 minutes
1R17 06:43 Piccadilly - Stafford 07:35 calling at Stockport, Wilmslow & Crewe, 52 minutes
Both schedules include 1.5 minutes of extra time as pathing allowance
Anyway, I would say pretty much the same time for Manchester-Stafford using either route.

Manchester-London will be quicker via Stoke because of the Hixon direct line.
1A36 12:55 Manchester to Rugeley N 13:56 calling at Stockport, Wilmslow & Crewe, -5.5 minutes pathing included in the schedule because it now has to follow the up Liverpool-London too closely now that the latter calls at Crewe, 55.5 minutes net
1A39 13:35 Manchester to Rugeley N 14:29.5 calling at Stockport, Macclesfield & Stoke, -0.5 minutes pathing, 54 minutes net

So actually not a lot in this either. Say a minute faster via Hixon for Manchester-London; a minute faster via Crewe for Manchester-Stafford, as demonstrated with services with the same number of intermediate stops.