• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,950
Location
UK
The existing seperate services already cross the WCML/ECML on the flat - so how much does combining them into a single through service increase the performance risk?
Because having a through service means that any delays cascade around the network. It's the problem with having very long distance through services.

If you had a North Wales to Stalybridge service and the train is running 15 minutes late at Ordsall Lane Jn, but there's a service from the direction ofSalford Crescent to the Airport that is due, it's easy: send the on-time train first because the Stalybridge service will simply arrive at Stalybridge a bit late and it won't cause too much of an issue (provided there is a long enough turnaround).

If that becomes a North Wales to Redcar/Hull etc. service then it becomes a very difficult balancing exercise - mess up the Castlefield corridor by holding the Airport service or mess up the TP core and cause ECML delays by holding the Redcar/Hull service?

but Stalybridge is a bit of a random endpoint for an inter-regional service
Out of all the justifications for determining the end point of a service, this surely has to be the worst one known to mankind? Redcar or Saltburn are random endpoints for a service from Manchester but they are still chosen because they are the optimal place to terminate, all things considered.

Many other examples are available, e.g. running Worcester services through to Whitlocks End because it has reversing facilities, rather than Shirley, which is where the traffic mostly dries up.

A fast service to Leeds might be a nice carrot for TfW
TfW don't really have to be persuaded as such. The DfT and Network Rail ultimately have the powers to impose the timetable they see fit. Of course, if you can get political stakeholders' support, all the better, but again, running through to Leeds to placate politicians is no way to run a railway.

But you wouldn't want to add a TfW service to the TPE core
Again, not a reason for combining services unnecessarily.

I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm sure these are all options that were considered at one stage, however there are good reasons why Stalybridge might be used for terminating services that arrive into Manchester Victoria from the west.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Something has to give in this. The North Wales service could always be diverted (as an extra service) to Crewe to give a Piccadilly/Airport connection from there (which can be almost just as fast with a decent connection)
At Chester, the timings of the N Wales - Manchester services pretty much match up with those of the Crewe shuttle. So the N Wales service could be diverted to terminate at Crewe in place of the shuttle, freeing up a TfW unit and crew for redeployment elsewhere.

I suggested this in my response to the consultation, as an alternative to the Option C diversion via the Mid Cheshire.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Because having a through service means that any delays cascade around the network. It's the problem with having very long distance through services.
It's really no different from having a through service from Liverpool to Cleethorpes to be honest, which has attracted a great deal of support from certain quarters here.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,950
Location
UK
It's really no different from having a through service from Liverpool to Cleethorpes to be honest, which has attracted a great deal of support from certain quarters here.
I would disagree with the reasoning for running that all the way to/from Cleethorpes (which essentially boils down to Scunthorpe and Grimsby stakeholders saying "but we've always had a through service to Sheffield/Manchester").

However, at least it doesn't involve crossing the WCML on the flat. It's still a very high risk service from a performance perspective, certainly until the constraint at Dore is resolved.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
At Chester, the timings of the N Wales - Manchester services pretty much match up with those of the Crewe shuttle. So the N Wales service could be diverted to terminate at Crewe in place of the shuttle, freeing up a TfW unit and crew for redeployment elsewhere.

I suggested this in my response to the consultation, as an alternative to the Option C diversion via the Mid Cheshire.
Personally I think that's a lovely and neat idea, provided Northern could supply adequate capacity on the Mid-Chesire line, and provided that the fast trains between Manchester and Crewe are also of adequate capacity (by which I really mean that the increases on the South Wales to Manchester service come to fruition) It would be a sensible long term objective to find a way to restore through services within 5 years. I'm quite sure it won't happen though.

I would disagree with the reasoning for running that all the way to/from Cleethorpes (which essentially boils down to Scunthorpe and Grimsby stakeholders saying "but we've always had a through service to Sheffield/Manchester").

However, at least it doesn't involve crossing the WCML on the flat. It's still a very high risk service from a performance perspective, certainly until the constraint at Dore is resolved.
Having to align crossing at Doncaster with the single line at Dore and the through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, as well as a turnaround platform at Liverpool and through platforms at Sheffield is very difficult and at least as difficult as aligning a platform at Middlesbrough and York with a flat crossing at Warrington.
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
At Chester, the timings of the N Wales - Manchester services pretty much match up with those of the Crewe shuttle. So the N Wales service could be diverted to terminate at Crewe in place of the shuttle, freeing up a TfW unit and crew for redeployment elsewhere.

I suggested this in my response to the consultation, as an alternative to the Option C diversion via the Mid Cheshire.

On current timings, the connection at Crewe into the Euston-Manchester is slightly too short to be official (about 6 minutes), although not sure whether there's much scope to adjust the connection from North Wales to arrive slightly earlier to make it official.

The other direction is a pretty comfortable connection out of the Manchester-South Wales.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,950
Location
UK
Having to align crossing at Doncaster with the single line at Dore and the through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly, as well as a turnaround platform at Liverpool and through platforms at Sheffield is very difficult and at least as difficult as aligning a platform at Middlesbrough and York with a flat crossing at Warrington.
Personally I think that service should be split at Doncaster, which would avoid the crossing issues. Liverpool turnaround platforms are not as great a constraint as you might think.

However, Castlefield, and to a lesser extent Sheffield, are undeniable constraints. But it's always better to reduce the number of constraints rather than increasing them.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,840
Many other examples are available, e.g. running Worcester services through to Whitlocks End because it has reversing facilities, rather than Shirley, which is where the traffic mostly dries up.
Where they used to spin until the facilities were put in at Whitlocks End to try and persuade people to use it as a P&R about a decade ago
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
No offence but the comments you've quoted don't seem very certain in their claims.
In the TfN Board Meeting yesterday, Andy Burnham's remarks, expressing frustration with the performance of the Task Force, were unanimously endorsed by other members of the Rail North Committee, namely Liam Robinson (committee chair), Stewart Swinburn (Conservative, NE Lincolnshire), Dan Jarvis (Sheffield mayor), Susan Hinchcliffe (W Yorkshire CA chair) and Chris Brewis (Independent, Lincolnshire).

The issue of the Mid Cheshire level crossings was known to both Network Rail and Northern, because it was the reason NR refused Northern's request for a Chester - Altrincham service a few years ago. Yet the consultation document ignored this issue in its recommended Option C. Either

a) Steer/DfT failed to give all the members of the Task Force the opportunity to review and comment on the options before publishing the consultation document; or

b) Both the NR and the Northern representatives on the Task Force were unaware of the crossings issue and failed to consult those within their respective organisations who could have enlightened them.

Either way, I think Andy Burnham was justified in his comment that this is embarrassing for the rail industry.

Of the Recovery Task Force, the consultation document claimed:
Its aim has been to work collaboratively through difficult problems together with the purpose of delivering the best possible outcomes achievable for passengers and provides a model for how the industry should work going forward.
Hmm....
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
In an alternate world leeds to chester/north wales being ran by the welsh goverment might make sense.

However in this universe its complete lunancy.

The purpose of TfW is to connect communities, maintain existing transit routes all for the benefit of the Welsh public.

In no way, shape or form does a Leeds service do this. It's the ultimate in crayolafests that seem to be the order of this place.

I can't fathom why anyone with a clue about the company or Welsh Goverment would consider this for a second.

The links to the North of england for the North welsh coast are linked to Liverpool. Manchester is a commuter belt for North Wales. The airport is a nice bonus but wouldn't be a massive loss.

Leeds (as much as I like it) is a ridiculous proposal. But whilst we are just throwing stuff in the air - why not lash some voyagers on it as well since its going half way across the country.

But if we consider the training requirements for a second - it takes 8 full days to go from manchester to leeds without diversions.

The north welsh depots number about 150 drivers, with the same amount of guards. So rough figures put that at 2400 days training. Then the additional issues around units - no chance of working a chester-leeds rtn trip without a break.


The entire task force seems to be the yorkshire councils tail trying to wag the dog.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
The issue of the Mid Cheshire level crossings was known to both Network Rail and Northern, because it was the reason NR refused Northern's request for a Chester - Altrincham service a few years ago. Yet the consultation document ignored this issue in its recommended Option C. Either

a) Steer/DfT failed to give all the members of the Task Force the opportunity to review and comment on the options before publishing the consultation document; or

b) Both the NR and the Northern representatives on the Task Force were unaware of the crossings issue and failed to consult those within their respective organisations who could have enlightened them.

Either way, I think Andy Burnham was justified in his comment that this is embarrassing for the rail industry.
Sad to say but option b. above rings a bell of truth for me. In both NR and Northern there's local knowledge of infrastructure and operations. Unfortunately, although known locally by those working trains and tracks (and local rail users and residents) those working on network and central planning don't always know those little details that are crucial.

Like Network Rail and Northern signing off on resiting a ticket machine back against a fence - that was an active gate used by Network Rail to access the tracks almost every weekend. To explain, it was well camouflaged with a variety of signs, but still.....
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'd argue the primary journey destination from Manchester is actually Chester, with passengers beyond Chester being the minority. And 2tph evenly spaced serves this better than 1+1tph unevenly spaced.

Manchester is primarily the destination, not the origin. But who are all these people who are going to Chester to do things that they can do in Manchester? Your argument is a bit like saying "MKC is the primary destination from Euston" and completely ignoring all the traffic coming the other way! :)

Why would it need to be unevenly spaced? Just run it in the second Northern path as far as Vic then on to Stalybridge (or somewhere similar) to reverse. (I think that's proposed in one of the Options, isn't it?)

Something has to give in this.The North Wales service could always be diverted (as an extra service) to Crewe to give a Piccadilly/Airport connection from there (which can be almost just as fast with a decent connection)

I do agree a Crewe would be handy on the North Wales Coast, but removing the Manchester is ludicrous and shows a complete misunderstanding of how North Wales associates. You don't work for the Welsh Government, do you? :) North East Wales is to all intents and purposes a set of suburbs for Liverpool, Manchester and Chester, and with Manchester being far away the most important and largest of these it is also a prime destination, and there is no possible way whatsoever that they will allow their service to there to be dropped, so you might as well forget it.

Meanwhile, a TOC that is known not to be able to resource its existing service (Northern) wants to put a second Chester-Leeds on, and you think that should be given priority? Ludicrous, utterly ludicrous.

One modification to option C which would solve this problem and simplify working patterns even further would be to swap termini and operate:
  • 1 tph Northern (or TfW) Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
  • 1 tph TfW N.Wales-Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
  • 2 tph Northern Southport-Wigan-Bolton-Victoria-Rochdale-Leeds
  • 1 tph only Northern Chester-Altrincham-Piccadilly (as at present)
This would separate the Bolton/Wigan/Rochdale services and the Chat Moss/Castlefield/Stalybridge services at Victoria to platforms 5/6 and 3/4 respectively.

I suspect that is what we will see. @Ianno87's suggestion of removing the North Wales Coast's through service to Manchester is beyond ridiculous (this is nothing like the Southport debate), and there is no way the Welsh Government would accept that - it would essentially be a "diplomatic incident" and the railway would be told in no uncertain terms to reinstate it.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Manchester is primarily the destination, not the origin. But who are all these people who are going to Chester to do things that they can do in Manchester? Your argument is a bit like saying "MKC is the primary destination from Euston" and completely ignoring all the traffic coming the other way! :)

The predominant flow on the service is to/from Manchester, the contra-flow (towards Chester for days our from Manchester) is much less strong, for the reasons you state. Manchester is the draw, but the majority of demand to Manchester on the train will be from Chester (inclusive) westwards. That's not to say there is no demand from west of Chester, more that it is outweighed by passengers joining at or after Chester.


Why would it need to be unevenly spaced? Just run it in the second Northern path as far as Vic then on to Stalybridge (or somewhere similar) to reverse. (I think that's proposed in one of the Options, isn't it?)

Because one would be dictated by the Calder Valley, one would be dictated by North Wales. And services staring/ending at different points will have different paths dictated by turnround times at destinations, so will be uneven spaced in the middle to get these to work at both ends.

The current (pre-Covid) service is (was) unevenly spaced, so continuing the same specification is likely to perpetuate the problem, unless there's some magic wand I'm unaware of to solve this.

I do agree a Crewe would be handy on the North Wales Coast, but removing the Manchester is ludicrous and shows a complete misunderstanding of how North Wales associates. You don't work for the Welsh Government, do you? :) North East Wales is to all intents and purposes a set of suburbs for Liverpool, Manchester and Chester, and with Manchester being far away the most important and largest of these it is also a prime destination, and there is no possible way whatsoever that they will allow their service to there to be dropped, so you might as well forget it.

I'm not saying there is no demand from North Wales to Manchester. I'm saying of the demand on the North Wales service as it arrives in Manchester, the majority of passengers will have joined at or after Chester. Ergo a service starting at Chester will still fulfill the majority of direct Manchester demand.

Once again something has to give. Somebody is going to have to lose out. Of course North Wales passengers want to get to Manchester, lots of people do. 2tph along the Coast connecting at Chester into 2tph to Victoria sounds more attractive than the current hourly direct service.



Meanwhile, a TOC that is known not to be able to resource its existing service (Northern) wants to put a second Chester-Leeds on, and you think that should be given priority? Ludicrous, utterly ludicrous.

Yes, if enough time is given to sort this out before implementation. As should be done before any major timetable implementation. The end state needs to be agreed, and then how we get there, and then a timescale to achieve that. Current issues should not blind us into overlooking the right long-term solution, it just needs more time to sort out.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Once again something has to give. Somebody is going to have to lose out. Of course North Wales passengers want to get to Manchester, lots of people do. 2tph along the Coast connecting at Chester into 2tph to Victoria sounds more attractive than the current hourly direct service.

And once again, nobody really does lose out if you run the TfW to Vic in place of one of the Northerns. Well, people who are even more sensitive about Takt than I am (I like clockface, but I accept in this case that that might mean a 25/35 split or something, it's not exactly hard to remember two numbers), or people who don't like Fainsa Sophias but do like ironing boards, or people who have a very strong preference for the colour blue. Who else loses out? People who travel from Chester to Leeds? How many of those are there that an hourly service is not adequate for them?

What sounds even more attractive than the above is 1tph direct and a second 1tph by connection, which is what this would achieve.

I'm sorry, but your proposal is absolutely and utterly nuts and shows no regard for passenger demand, and as I said the Welsh Government would turn it into a diplomatic incident, so whether you like it or not it is not happening. TfW will continue to run to Manchester - the only thing that might change is it running to Victoria rather than Castlefield.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
And once again, nobody really does lose out if you run the TfW to Vic in place of one of the Northerns. Well, people who are even more sensitive about Takt than I am (I like clockface, but I accept in this case that that might mean a 25/35 split or something, it's not exactly hard to remember two numbers), or people who don't like Fainsa Sophias but do like ironing boards, or people who have a very strong preference for the colour blue. Who else loses out? People who travel from Chester to Leeds? How many of those are there that an hourly service is not adequate for them?

2tph, same operator, same seats, turn up and go, half hourly pattern, consistent, reliable. No faffing around at Victoria or getting the wrong colour train with your ticket. Sounds very passenger friendly. And one less operator in the Manchester muddle. (You wouldn't have multiple TOCs through Thameslink, for example)


What sounds even more attractive than the above is 1tph direct and a second 1tph by connection, which is what this would achieve.

I'm sorry, but your proposal is absolutely and utterly nuts and shows no regard for passenger demand, and as I said the Welsh Government would turn it into a diplomatic incident, so whether you like it or not it is not happening. TfW will continue to run to Manchester - the only thing that might change is it running to Victoria rather than Castlefield.

I have shown regard for passenger demand, and acknowledged this. Whatever solution is adopted is going to have to ignore passenger demand somewhere or other. But we're in s
perpetual loop of
-"What about this?"
-"Oh no, can't possibly do that!"
-"Or what about this instead?"
-"No, not that either"
-"How about....?"

Repeat ad infinitum.This whole sorry saga is one massive diplomatic incident, and someone, somewhere going to have to be upset. Sorry.

I only pick out North Wales as it seems a candidate to mitigate with alternative service options, to soften the blow.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
2tph, same operator, same seats, turn up and go, half hourly pattern, consistent, reliable. No faffing around at Victoria or getting the wrong colour train with your ticket. Sounds very passenger friendly.

You've used Northern, I take it? :)

I have shown regard for passenger demand, and acknowledged this. Whatever solution is adopted is going to have to ignore passenger demand somewhere or other. But we're in s
perpetual loop of
-"What about this?"
-"Oh no, can't possibly do that!"
-"Or what about this instead?"
-"No, not that either"
-"How about....?"

Repeat ad infinitum.This whole sorry saga is one massive diplomatic incident, and someone, somewhere going to have to be upset. Sorry.

It's a mess, yes. But this is something that would cause the Welsh Government to kick up serious, serious upset. It would be like a 2-car DMU version of telling Nicola Sturgeon that LNER is going to terminate at Newcastle forthwith.

The issue with Option C seems to be solely that you can't run the TfW on the Mid Cheshire Line. So you can one of the Northern Leeds-Chesters and run it in that path instead, and run a separate Vic-Leeds from the Vic bays if it's needed. A simple fix that keeps almost all the benefits of Option C unless you happen to be a massive Class 195 fan.

That does not have a significant adverse impact on passenger demand (by which I mean the journeys they want to make, not whether they happen to like Fainsa Sophia seats or not, or are somehow offended by a Welsh TOC operating services in England) because that demand does not presently exist, because you are talking about not starting a service that presently does not exist and hasn't existed for years, and so nobody has built their lives around it.

You seem to be treating this like the Southport argument. It's not like that at all. It's like saying that you're going to run Southport-Wigan as a shuttle only with a requirement to change to Wigan-Manchester services separately, which would also be silly and pointless.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
You've used Northern, I take it? :)

This would be Northern given a fighting chance to sort their crew issues, introduce Thameslink-esque principles for resilience and some money to do it.
It's a mess, yes. But this is something that would cause the Welsh Government to kick up serious, serious upset. It would be like a 2-car DMU version of telling Nicola Sturgeon that LNER is going to terminate at Newcastle forthwith.

The issue with Option C seems to be solely that you can't run the TfW on the Mid Cheshire Line. So you can one of 0the Northern Leeds-Chesters and run it in that path instead, and run a separate Vic-Leeds from the Vic bays if it's needed. A simple fix that keeps almost all the benefits of Option C unless you happen to be a massive Class 195 fan.

The big assumption is whether that can be timetabled - it may not be a "simple fix" on the timetable graph. e.g. a turnround time that is neat at Victoria in one direction by definition is horrendous in the other, for a path that is simply split in two.


That does not have a significant adverse impact on passenger demand (by which I mean the journeys they want to make, not whether they happen to like Fainsa Sophia seats or not, or are somehow offended by a Welsh TOC operating services in England) because that demand does not presently exist, because you are talking about not starting a service that presently does not exist and hasn't existed for years, and so nobody has built their lives around it.

Timetable planning is about accomodating and encouraging future demand as much as it is about historic links. Railway demand is not a static entity, and flows change and evolve over time. Sometimes challenging historic direct connections leads to a plan that benefits more passengers and stimulates more demand overall. Covid in particular has thrown traditional demand patterns out of the window, and we're starting from a near-blank canvas again.

And the passengers who have "built their lives" around it from Chester Eastwards will still be catered for (which is the practical limit of regular Manchester commuting for the majority of folk)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And the passengers who have "built their lives" around it from Chester Eastwards will still be catered for (which is the practical limit of regular Manchester commuting for the majority of folk)

Manchester commuting occurs between about 0700-0900 and 1700-1900, and that's being generous (the North's rush hour is narrower than London's).

What of the rest of the day? Loads of passengers needing to go from Runcorn East to Leeds, aren't there?

There is literally no good reason at all to do this. And the paths can be made to match up, the North Wales Coast isn't even nearly congested (having just 2tph most hours) so changing the timings at that end (with a short wait at Chester if necessary) is not going to be like trying to repath something on the south WCML.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Manchester commuting occurs between about 0700-0900 and 1700-1900, and that's being generous (the North's rush hour is narrower than London's).

What of the rest of the day? Loads of passengers needing to go from Runcorn East to Leeds, aren't there?

There is literally no good reason at all to do this. And the paths can be made to match up, the North Wales Coast isn't even nearly congested (having just 2tph most hours) so changing the timings at that end (with a short wait at Chester if necessary) is not going to be like trying to repath something on the south WCML.

That 4 hour window is an interesting thought about Manchester. That seems the opposite to life on metrolink, which for all intents and purposes performs the same job, but over a smaller geography.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
This would be Northern given a fighting chance to sort their crew issues, introduce Thameslink-esque principles for resilience and some money to do it.
I'd suggest that the funding to do what you want isn't going to be forthcoming. No more than funding the build bridges over the troublesome level crossings is. Northern's costs have been growing significantly in recent years and are already very large despite the relatively poor results that has produced so far.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
The trouble with option C seems to have been the proposal to send TfW via Northwich but then replace it on Chat Moss with an extension of the existing Calder Valley service that currently terminates at Victoria. I think that service is the one that was supposed to go to Liverpool in 2015 but NR said caused a performance issue. So presumably a request for this move would cause NR to give the same answer. But something at Castlefield has to go so could the TfW service (as a DMU) be sent to the bay at Rochdale? Thinking not Stalybridge because that line is due to be wired soon
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The trouble with option C seems to have been the proposal to send TfW via Northwich but then replace it on Chat Moss with an extension of the existing Calder Valley service that currently terminates at Victoria. I think that service is the one that was supposed to go to Liverpool in 2015 but NR said caused a performance issue. So presumably a request for this move would cause NR to give the same answer. But something at Castlefield has to go so could the TfW service (as a DMU) be sent to the bay at Rochdale? Thinking not Stalybridge because that line is due to be wired soon

While running diesels under the wires when you could run an EMU on the service is not desirable, I don't think running it under the wires to a convenient reversal station is quite the same, so I wouldn't get hung up on Stalybridge. Stalybridge is like the Airport - you've got to send it somewhere to turn around, so send it there - it's not about actually serving Stalybridge.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Was thinking as much about the Stalybridge line facing several years of disruption and diversions during the TRU process that presumably won't apply to the Rochdale line
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Manchester commuting occurs between about 0700-0900 and 1700-1900, and that's being generous (the North's rush hour is narrower than London's).
There are definitely people commuting into Manchester after 9am and going home before 5pm. When Chester via Altrincham services left Piccadilly at 17 minutes past the hour the 16:17 was always very busy with workers. While the 08:02 Chester to Piccadilly does an extra call at Levenshulme at around 09:25 as there lots of people still commuting at that time.

If you count schoolchildren and students as commuters as well then I would say the Manchester commuting hours are typically 06:30 to 10 and 15:15 to 19:45 and even that excludes some smaller numbers who work more irregular hours e.g. a call centre person who works a 12pm to 8pm shift or a restaurant worker who works 4pm to 10pm.

You're perhaps forgetting train services are a lot less frequent than in London. Someone whose employer requires them to start work at 8am might need to catch a service arriving in Manchester at 07:25 and they might live 45 minutes out from Manchester, meaning starting their commute after 7am would make them late.

Speaking of Runcorn East I think that's where Capita are based who do a lot of outsourced customer service work, including for First Group.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,909
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Was thinking as much about the Stalybridge line facing several years of disruption and diversions during the TRU process that presumably won't apply to the Rochdale line
I suggested above that the Southport trains should go via Rochdale to Leeds, rather than to Stalybridge, with the trains from Chester via Warrington Bank Quay routed to Stalybridge instead. This reduces crossing moves and keeps the ex-L&Y and ex-LNW services separate at Victoria. (I know that the Victoria-Stalybridge line and local service was actually L&Y pre-1921, but in essence it is true.)

It is very important for effective delivery of any revised service post May 2022 that all Southport and Wigan Wallgate services, which will all be diesel, run to Victoria and do not venture onto the Castlefield line.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is very important for effective delivery of any revised service post May 2022 that all Southport and Wigan Wallgate services, which will all be diesel, run to Victoria and do not venture onto the Castlefield line.

It's really not. There are good cases for consolidating it, but with Castlefield it is mostly just about how many trains there are (provided you can space them out).

But that aside, I can't see @Ianno87 giving up his precious 2tph from Chester to Leeds given how he'd rather seriously upset the Welsh Government than lose even one of those.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Does anyone know of there is a deadline (vague or defined) that the DfT will take a decision on one of the three options and impose a new timetable?

Yes there is, and it is determined by timetable planning timescales. In ‘normal’ times, train operators have to advise Network Rail of any significant changes they wish to implement in a timetable change at ‘D-55’, which is the 55 weeks before the timetable commences. For May 2022, that’s next Friday. The timescales may have changed a little because of the current situation, but not much. So s decision is needed imminently.


As he should. As we all should.

But do we know what he has actually said on this occasion, as opposed to someone else's interpretation of what he has said in private.

Yes, because it is a matter of public record, on the stream of the meeting linked to upthread.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It's really not. There are good cases for consolidating it, but with Castlefield it is mostly just about how many trains there are (provided you can space them out).

But that aside, I can't see @Ianno87 giving up his precious 2tph from Chester to Leeds given how he'd rather seriously upset the Welsh Government than lose even one of those.

I have no beef with Chester-Leeds in particular. It's Option C in general that I am in favour of. It's a timetable that as a whole is deemed workable and performance robust, and with net passenger benefits overall.

And my proposal to get that to work is remove the problem train from it- the TfW service on the Mid Cheshire and terminate that at Chester/Crewe with onward connections, which still satisfies the majority of passengers. Leave the rest untouched as something deemed to be workable, not start chopping and changing that too (and fall into the "trying to bodge the plan to please everybody" trap that caused this mess in the first place). A timetable is a whole entity with many inter-dependencies - changing one thing in a seemingly innocuous way affects everything else.
 
Last edited:

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Somebody has to be upset to be able to reduce trains through Castlefield. I still prefer Option C and hope a way can be found to make it workable even if it means slipping back to December. Imho given the size of the respective markets it should be Southport that is at the back of the queue for access to Castlefield over Chester. But then if you split two services that are "joined for convenience" like Southport-Alderley Edge or Liverpool- Wilmslow/Crewe Northern need 2 lots of stock and maybe more staff to run them. Catch 22 and possibly an ever decreasing circles type situation ?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Somebody has to be upset to be able to reduce trains through Castlefield.

Yes, true, and Southport is probably justifiable as it is still a service to Manchester. North Wales is not an acceptable casualty just because being slightly off a perfect half hourly service offends someone's eyes a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top