Liverpool to Sheffield but then where

[tbtc]

Far better that Glasgow to Mallaig as an example to have been quoted

Yes, I'm well aware that Mallaig isn't a big place, but at five and a half hours its much more "long distance" than a lot of the "Inter City" services that are around two hours in duration (London - Bristol/ Manchester/ Leeds etc).

I use this comparison (and the reference to Sunderland - Newcastle) to try to avoid the "X to Y is a long distance route with a long journey time therefore it deserves Inter City status" argument.

Similarly, the "X and Y are both cities therefore deserve an Inter City service" argument can be disingenuous. On one of the HS2 threads someone claimed that Worcester to Bristol should be Inter City on that basis. However, is there a market for First Class services with a buffet?

Transpennine is an example of a service which can justify a First Class section and can justify a trolley, but I don't think would sustain a buffet car, for example.

Its not as clear cut as some people think, sorry
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"with lots of luggage space"

What?

A 185?

Compared to the 158s the OP wants to go to Manchester Airport, yes.

The space around the doors etc are much better for luggage on a 185 than on a 158, especially the EMT ones with seats crammed in.

 

[northwichcat]

Compared to the 158s the OP wants to go to Manchester Airport, yes.

The space around the doors etc are much better for luggage on a 185 than on a 158, especially the EMT ones with seats crammed in.

Luggage has to go in a luggage rack, overhead racks or between seat backs.

I thought the 4 car 158s that you mentioned have more luggage space than a 3 car 185.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

Yes, I'm well aware that Mallaig isn't a big place, but at five and a half hours its much more "long distance" than a lot of the "Inter City" services that are around two hours in duration (London - Bristol/ Manchester/ Leeds etc).

I use this comparison (and the reference to Sunderland - Newcastle) to try to avoid the "X to Y is a long distance route with a long journey time therefore it deserves Inter City status" argument.

Similarly, the "X and Y are both cities therefore deserve an Inter City service" argument can be disingenuous. On one of the HS2 threads someone claimed that Worcester to Bristol should be Inter City on that basis. However, is there a market for First Class services with a buffet?

Transpennine is an example of a service which can justify a First Class section and can justify a trolley, but I don't think would sustain a buffet car, for example.

Its not as clear cut as some people think, sorry
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Compared to the 158s the OP wants to go to Manchester Airport, yes.

The space around the doors etc are much better for luggage on a 185 than on a 158, especially the EMT ones with seats crammed in.

"The space around the doors etc are much better for luggage on a 185"

Waaaaaaaaat?

 

[MCR247]

185s are much more 'open plan' than 158s in that respect. If you have been on both of them you will know what I mean

 

[WestCoast]

"The space around the doors etc are much better for luggage on a 185"

Waaaaaaaaat?

When luggage is involved, wider doors are better.

 

[northwichcat]

When luggage is involved, wider doors are better.

Assuming there aren't people standing in the extra space, which is on a 185 isn't uncommon.

 

[WestCoast]

Assuming there aren't people standing in the extra space, which is on a 185 isn't uncommon.

True, it is ridiculous that TPE were prevented from ordering 4-car sets

 

[Andrew Nelson]

When luggage is involved, wider doors are better.

There should not be Luggage in the Doorway. End of.

 

[WestCoast]

There should not be Luggage in the Doorway. End of.

No I didn't mean luggage the doorway, I meant getting on and off. 158s have narrow doors and tight vestibules meaning that manoeuvring cases is more difficult than on a 185!

The volume of people regularly boarding and alighting on the high-density core TransPennine service make wider doors more suitable than the doors on 158s.

Cases in the doorways, vestibules and aisles is one of my biggest gripes actually. Although sometimes it cannot be helped, as some stock simply don't have the storage or people want to keep their cases in view (and for example, won't use the guards van on HSTs/225s or the storage space on the Pendos or XC Voyagers).

 

[tbtc]

There should not be Luggage in the Doorway. End of.

There is on some TPE services, due to the passenger volumes/ luggage etc

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is on some TPE services, due to the passenger volumes/ luggage etc

I was returning from York last Monday on the 1628 service to Manchester Airport when the train from Newcastle pulled in at platform 9. There were 6 American women wanting to disembark and it took myself and another passenger quite a while to lift and then take off the biggest 6 suitcases that I had ever seen. They said that there were no available spaces on the racks when they got on at Durham, so they had to leave them near the doorway.

 

[Invincibles]

I do not think that there really needs to be any swapping of Norwich and Cleethorpes as destinations.

However I would like to see a third service run through from Liverpool to the East Midlands such that the three trains were then

Liverpool - Newton-Le-Willows-Victoria - (New Mills) - Sheffield - Alfreton - Nottingham -> Norwich

Manchester Airport - Piccadilly - Stockport - (Dore south curve) Chesterfield - East Midlands Parkway - Loughborough - Leicester - Stations to Bedford.

Manchester Airport - Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield - Meadowhall - Doncaster -> Cleethorpes.

My hope is that by having the Liverpool train off the Hope Valley line until Chinley and the other service not serving Sheffield that the paths through the Hope Valley pinchpoints are possible. I would expect the Liverpool train to run just behind/ahead of the Bedford.

East Midlands Parkway serves the airport and has services from Nottingham and Derby so is a possibility for connections. The aim with my 2nd Manchester Airport train is to link as many people in the East Midlands quickly to Manchester, going via Derby or Nottingham would compromise this imo.

 

[northwichcat]

Liverpool - Newton-Le-Willows-Victoria - (New Mills) - Sheffield - Alfreton - Nottingham -> Norwich

Manchester Airport - Piccadilly - Stockport - (Dore south curve) Chesterfield - East Midlands Parkway - Loughborough - Leicester - Stations to Bedford.

Interesting choice. One proposal put forward by Nottingham council is to remove the Sheffield call from the Norwich-Liverpool service to give Nottingham faster services to Manchester. Your suggestion certainly wouldn't help get a faster service between Nottingham and Manchester, in fact I think it would be slower.

I'm sure when the WCML competition expires it would be easier to extend one of the St Pancras-Sheffield trains to Manchester via Stockport to give the extra service, as MML did in the past.

 

[Invincibles]

Interesting choice. One proposal put forward by Nottingham council is to remove the Sheffield call from the Norwich-Liverpool service to give Nottingham faster services to Manchester. Your suggestion certainly wouldn't help get a faster service between Nottingham and Manchester, in fact I think it would be slower.

I'm sure when the WCML competition expires it would be easier to extend one of the St Pancras-Sheffield trains to Manchester via Stockport to give the extra service, as MML did in the past.

Well it is quite obvious why Nottingham Council would want that

It may be that the other way around is better, with the Nottingham train going round Dore South and running to the Airport and a seperate train doing East Midlands to Liverpool. The reason I did not go with that was because it would mean a recast.

The reason I sent the Norwich - Liverpool via Victoria was to remove the need to use 13/14 at Piccadilly with a long distance train that could be delayed and because presumably there are not paths through Longsight for 3 trains per hour on the Hope Valley.

As I actually want 13/14 to become almost exclusively Airport only then maybe the Norwich to Liverpool could still run through them (risking delay slotting into other paths) and then the extra Hope Valley could come via Belle Vue and terminate in the main part of Piccadilly.

Many options but I think I end up back with my first suggestion, but it is close

 

[northwichcat]

The reason I sent the Norwich - Liverpool via Victoria was to remove the need to use 13/14 at Piccadilly with a long distance train that could be delayed and because presumably there are not paths through Longsight for 3 trains per hour on the Hope Valley.

I'm not sure you'd easily get an express via Marple and New Mills though. There are a lot of all-stops services that go that way.

We also have to remember that Victoria doesn't have a lot of through platforms so we can't send every service that way just to avoid platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly, without moving congestion to Victoria.

 

[Invincibles]

I'm not sure you'd easily get an express via Marple and New Mills though. There are a lot of all-stops services that go that way.

We also have to remember that Victoria doesn't have a lot of through platforms so we can't send every service that way just to avoid platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly, without moving congestion to Victoria.

True, and post Northern Hub it will have a lot of services.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of Preston to Hazel Grove and have the slowest of the trains serve Hazel Grove (would it really need to serve Woodsmoor and Davenport?) then get an electric service to call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme. Then all 3 could run via Stockport without needing further paths (this was suggested above)

Project Rio did manage to squeeze down the New Mills line but I do not know how paths have changed since then for a fast train now.

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe the answer is to get rid of Preston to Hazel Grove and have the slowest of the trains serve Hazel Grove (would it really need to serve Woodsmoor and Davenport?)

I think except at peak times the Preston-Hazel Grove services don't need to serve Woodsmoor and Davenport.

What I find annoying is the 17:23 Manchester-Hazel Grove service as there's simply no need for it. It's 4 minutes after a Buxton service and the only direct services the Mid Cheshire line get from Manchester between 16:00 and 18:30 depart at 16:17, 17:09 and 18:17. 17:09 is too early for commuters, while the other two are too early or too late. The excuse is a lack of paths, a 17:23 departure would be ideal for the Mid-Cheshire line.

They should make the 17:19 Buxton service 6 carriages with corridor connectors. Make the train do all stations between Piccadilly and Buxton. Then open the rear 2 carriages at Oxford Rd, Piccadilly, Levenshulme, Heaton Chapel, Stockport and Buxton only. That way a path is freed up and possibly by some timetabling adjustments you can fit in an extra departure for Chester via Altrincham at Piccadilly.

 

[Invincibles]

That one does seem a bit daft, is the stock needed elsewhere after it has been to Hazel Grove?

I am just in favour of anything that allows the freeing up of a path for an East Midlands to Manchester train via Dore South

The Mid Cheshire Line I would look at stoppers from Chester to Altrincham and semi fasts from Chester to Manchester via Stockport (but that is a different line)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the operational reason for the 1723 Manchester Piccadilly to Hazel Grove service running 4 minutes after the Buxton service. Is it to ensure passengers during that part of the evening rush hour can have a better chance of actually travelling in less cramped conditions on the Buxton train?....or do other factors come into play.

I have a contact who works near to the Lancashire Cricket Ground who works from 0800 to 1630 then uses the Metrolink to Piccadilly station then uses the train to Hazel Grove who says some of his homeward journeys as being "SOMEWHAT INTERESTING". He never uses bad language.

 

[northwichcat]

What is the operational reason for the 1723 Manchester Piccadilly to Hazel Grove service running 4 minutes after the Buxton service. Is it to ensure passengers during that part of the evening rush hour can have a better chance of actually travelling in less cramped conditions on the Buxton train?....or do other factors come into play.

The 17:23 takes the Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel passengers, which the 17:19 does not. The 17:19 also omits Woodsmoor and Davenport. A service calling at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel can obviously continue to any destination in the South Manchester group and doesn't need to be another Hazel Grove service. I think it's partly down to the Mid-Cheshire line being nominated for cutbacks as a result of the enhanced WCML timetable needing more paths and the other services were all supposed to keep the same level of service, even if they are in poorly timed paths that make no sense.

 

[ashworth]

Liverpool - Newton-Le-Willows-Victoria - (New Mills) - Sheffield - Alfreton - Nottingham -> Norwich

Manchester Airport - Piccadilly - Stockport - (Dore south curve) Chesterfield - East Midlands Parkway - Loughborough - Leicester - Stations to Bedford.

Manchester Airport - Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield - Meadowhall - Doncaster -> Cleethorpes.

Interesting ideas here, but as much as missing out Sheffield would speed journeys between Nottingham and Manchester, Sheffield is an important centre of population and a station for connections and does really need 3 trains an hour to Manchester.

If Sheffield was included in all 3 services, I would ask the question why 2 trains each hour would need to go to Manchester Airport. Why not route one to Preston or even Blackpool, calling at Bolton and either Chorley or Wigan?
Nottingham (especially now its lost the direct service to Crewe) needs a good connection with the WCML and destinations in the North West. Also Sheffield-Blackpool does actually generate a considerable amount of traffic as you can often see by the numbers changing train at Manchester Piccadilly.

The Windsor Link at Manchester was built to provide easier through connections, without having to change stations in Manchester. Yet as soon as it opened, such services as Cambridge-Blackpool and Nottingham- Glasgow that had for a number of years been running via very slow routes around manchester via Victoria, stopped running!

 

[MCR247]

Thats why I think that you should have:

1tph Nottingham - Derby - Chesterfield - - Stockport - Manchester
1tph Nottingham - Alfreton - Chesterfield- Sheffield - Stockport - Manchester

One of those would be a Liverpool - Norwich (I'd say the slower one) and the other is Manchester Piccadilly. You could go Nottingham - fast - Manchester - Liverpool and then Norwich - Piccadilly!

 

[Boothby97]

Keep them the same. I don't want to change at Manchester Piccadilly to get to the airport as I live at the buffer stops of the STPE Route. Thats Cleethorpes not Manchester Airport.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Keep them the same. I don't want to change at Manchester Piccadilly to get to the airport as I live at the buffer stops of the STPE Route. Thats Cleethorpes not Manchester Airport.

And how often would anyone from Cleethorpes, Grimsby or Scunthorpe require Manchester Apt?

 

[northwichcat]

With Airport services I think most people saying they use the direct service who aren't Airport employees actually make around one return journey to the Airport a year.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And how often would anyone from Cleethorpes, Grimsby or Scunthorpe require Manchester Apt?

Would running the following help:-

Doncaster - Sheffield - Manchester Piccadilly - Manchester Airport
(leaving both Doncaster and Sheffield with airport services)

Doncaster - Scunthorpe - Grimsby - Cleethorpes
(giving connections at Doncaster to a wide range of places)

This is just a thought, but the turnround of the airport train, there and back, would be greatly increased.

 

[Boothby97]

And how often would anyone from Cleethorpes, Grimsby or Scunthorpe require Manchester Apt?

I last used it in 2006, I think.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would running the following help:-

Doncaster - Sheffield - Manchester Piccadilly - Manchester Airport
(leaving both Doncaster and Sheffield with airport services)

Doncaster - Scunthorpe - Grimsby - Cleethorpes
(giving connections at Doncaster to a wide range of places)

This is just a thought, but the turnround of the airport train, there and back, would be greatly increased.

I do kind of agree. However i still feel sheffield needs the rail link to cleethorpes. I and many others have used that alot especially from meadowhall. So you could overlap and make one of them a stopper between sheffield and doncaster so as not just to have three expresses an hour between sheffield and doncaster (excluding XC and including the sheffield bridlington service)

 

[Donny Dave]

And how often would anyone from Cleethorpes, Grimsby or Scunthorpe require Manchester Apt?

More than you think!

Would running the following help:-

Doncaster - Sheffield - Manchester Piccadilly - Manchester Airport
(leaving both Doncaster and Sheffield with airport services)

Doncaster - Scunthorpe - Grimsby - Cleethorpes
(giving connections at Doncaster to a wide range of places)

This is just a thought, but the turnround of the airport train, there and back, would be greatly increased.

If your going to cut back the service, then Scunthorpe would be a more logical place, as the TPE services can be very busy to/from Scunthorpe from Manchester and Sheffield. However, the service does need to go to Cleethorpes in the Summer, as there is a lot of holiday traffic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

More than you think!



If your going to cut back the service, then Scunthorpe would be a more logical place, as the TPE services can be very busy to/from Scunthorpe from Manchester and Sheffield. However, the service does need to go to Cleethorpes in the Summer, as there is a lot of holiday traffic.

Would you say that the summer demand to go to Cleethorpes would be more Yorkshire-based than from the west side of the Pennines? Is it not possible to program in extra services at peak holiday times these days? Is stock availability the problem on that point?

I chose Doncaster because of its position on a certain rail line and the connections offered from that station on both my projections.

I note your other point and would amend my service on that line to read:-
SHEFFIELD - DONCASTER - SCUNTHORPE - GRIMSBY- CLEETHORPES.

I hope this clarification is of help...but PLEASE. don't come back in reply to say that you have uncovered a hitherto unknown holiday-seeking market of Scunthorpe residents having an over-riding need to have rail access to Manchester Airport in great numbers:roll: