Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Greybeard33]

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.

It is by no means self evident that the Option C proposals require a net increase in Northern rolling stock and traincrew resources, relative to the baseline timetable.

Extending a second Leeds - Victoria service to Chester needs two extra trains and crew. But Option C bins off the Liverpool - Airport via Warrington semi-fast, which saves three diagrams, two of which are worked by 6-car 195 formations in the May 2021 timetable.

There are frequency reductions on other lines too, which should reduce overall crew requirements.

However, some additional crew training may well be required, which might rule out a May 2022 implementation date.

 

[daodao]

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.

I agree with option C as well in principle, providing that the TfW service is removed from the Mid Cheshire line. Another option for the TfW train from Llandudno is to join it to the existing Liverpool service via the Frodsham curve, with Manchester passengers changing at Chester (or Frodsham). Liverpool is a more important place as a destination for Gogs than Manchester.

 

[Ianno87]

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.

Can you categorically state that 1+1 is workable in a timetable at Manchester Victoria alongside everything else in Option C?

Options A/B/C have been proposed because they have been demonstrated to be timetable-able. Option C with X/Y/Z adjustment might not be.

 

[AMD]

Yes, true, and Southport is probably justifiable as it is still a service to Manchester.

Here we go again.
The problem with removing this is that everything else from this direction of Wigan (via Atherton OR Bolton) already goes to Victoria, and having 1tph provides connections for a substantial part of NW Greater Manchester (not just Southport). As someone who works in this area there is a strong cross Manchester traffic flow via Piccadilly as testified by the volume of passengers who have to change at Salford Crescent.

 

[Glenn1969]

But (at least) 1tph has to be removed from Castlefield by one means or another. Out of all the candidates Southport is by far the smallest market. Yes you need to change. Plus the Blackpool, Cumbria and Scotland services still provide access to Castlefield from Wigan and Bolton

 

[peters]

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.

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.

I don't understand how this is a workable alternative.

The service from North Wales arrives at Chester at xx:48 and the Crewe service departs Chester at xx:53, so far so good. However then the shuttle arrives at Crewe at xx:19. That means one of
1. Finding a new path for an additional Crewe to Manchester service (where's that going to come from?)
2. The North Wales service taking the path of the South Wales service, with the South Wales service either having to terminate at Crewe or run to Chester instead. (Would that work either?)
3. Portion working between Crewe and Manchester. (Would extend the journey time.)
4. The North Wales to Chester service taking the path of one of the Northern stoppers to Manchester, resulting in a journey time of around 1 hr 25. (You might as well introduce an additional Greenbank to Manchester stopper and have the TfW service running via the Mid-Cheshire, running all stops to Cuddington, then as an express.)

And all those options presume there's no issues with either a service from Chester going into platform 6 at Crewe or a service to Manchester departing from platform 11.

 

[peters]

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

I've looked at the specifications recently and the idea of a Bradford to Liverpool service came about as something Arriva proposed to introduce in December 2019 as a nice to have rather than something DfT mandated the franchise bidders to provide. Bradford to Chester and Bradford to Manchester Airport were things DfT specified, Bradford to Nottingham was another nice to have that Arriva included for introduction in 2019.

However, saying that I think it's safe to presume DfT's original mandate for services every 15 minutes between Manchester Victoria and Manchester Airport (2 Northern and 2 TPE) will not be happening until additional Castlefield infrastructure is provided.

 

[nr758123]

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

Thanks. I had assumed it was in the confidential section of the meeting, not least because it refers to a Rail North Committee meeting yesterday morning that was so confidential that the TfN website doesn't even acknowledge its existence.

 

[Manutd1999]

The problem with removing this is that everything else from this direction of Wigan (via Atherton OR Bolton) already goes to Victoria, and having 1tph provides connections for a substantial part of NW Greater Manchester (not just Southport).

One of the sensible 'tweaks' suggested for Option C was an hourly Wigan - Castlefield - Hazel Grove to run all day, not just in the peaks. This seems like a reasonable compromise, keeping a cross-Manchester link and providing connections at Wigan for Southport, in addition to the options already available at Bolton/Salford.

If the capacity of Castlefield is around 12 ph, a tweaked version of Option C is the best option IMO:
2x Liverpool - Sheffield
2x Airport - Scotland/Barrow
2x Airport - Blackpool
2x Airport - Leeds/York/NE
1x Airport - Chat Moss - Liverpool
1x Hazel Grove - Chat Moss - Wigan
1x Oxford Road - Warrington stopper (+1x extra in the peaks)
1x Freight

Then there are 8ph through Victoria (2x Southport, 2x Blackburn, 2x Wigan/Atherton, 1x Chester, 1x North Wales), each running to either Rochdale, Stalybridge or Leeds via the Calder Valley. Simple

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the sensible 'tweaks' suggested for Option C was an hourly Wigan - Castlefield - Hazel Grove to run all day, not just in the peaks. This seems like a reasonable compromise, keeping a cross-Manchester link and providing connections at Wigan for Southport, in addition to the options already available at Bolton/Salford.

But then if you are going to do that, why not continue it to Southport in place of the nearest timed Vic service and terminate that at Wigan instead? It's a similar scenario then to North Wales. I genuinely believe OPSTA is pushing the majority view of the line's users, and it is hardly difficult to path services towards Southport from Wigan as it is only 2tph.

Yes, that might mean a 40-20 split on the Southport line, but I don't think the users actually care.

I get that we need to take services off Castlefield, and so taking Southport off is justified. But if you are going to put an all day Wigan on, you are then getting into telling passengers they can't have what they want purely for ideological reasons, which is not how to do things.

By all means don't run anything from the Wigan corridor to Castlefield at all if that is necessary. But this is just going "ner" to Southport, and totally unnecessarily too, just because splitting the service between the stations offends their view of a nice clean timetable.

 

[Manutd1999]

But then if you are going to do that, why not continue it to Southport in place of the nearest timed Vic service and terminate that at Wigan instead?

It makes sense for the Wigan-Hazel Grove to be an EMU, so that might prevent it going to Southport. Also, I am not sure you can easily access the Southport lines from Chat Moss / WCML, it would probably have to go to Wigan North Western?

 

[Watershed]

It makes sense for the Wigan-Hazel Grove to be an EMU, so that might prevent it going to Southport. Also, I am not sure you can easily access the Southport lines from Chat Moss / WCML, it would probably have to go to Wigan North Western?

Wigan Station Junction provides a link from the WCML to Wigan Wallgate, and from the Atherton/Westhoughton line to Wigan NW. It's quite slow, involves a conflicting move (unless you do Atherton/Westhoughton to Wigan NW platform 1/2), and isn't electrified, but if that's the cost of getting the service pattern right, that's almost certainly a price worth paying.

 

[Manutd1999]

In that case, there could even be an opportunity for 3ph Southport to Manchester to keep everybody happy 2ph to Victoria via Bolton to keep the half-hourly timetable, and an 'extra' hourly to Hazel Grove via Chat Moss to keep a link to Castlefield. If the conflicting move at Wigan is particularly problematic the extension to Southport could be cut back to peak only.

 

[Hey 3]

In that case, there could even be an opportunity for 3ph Southport to Manchester to keep everybody happy 2ph to Victoria via Bolton to keep the half-hourly timetable, and an 'extra' hourly to Hazel Grove via Chat Moss to keep a link to Castlefield. If the conflicting move at Wigan is particularly problematic the extension to Southport could be cut back to peak only.

There is no need for diesels under the wires and conflicting movements just to keep the Sandergrounders happy.

 

[krus_aragon]

Another option for the TfW train from Llandudno is to join it to the existing Liverpool service via the Frodsham curve, with Manchester passengers changing at Chester (or Frodsham). Liverpool is a more important place as a destination for Gogs than Manchester.

Time for my "public service announcement":

TfW intend to operate three services along the coast from 2022: Holyhead-Cardiff/Birmingham, Llandudno-Liverpool (with a Shrewsbury/Cardiff portion joining at Chester), and Bangor-Manchester.

From 2022, a Llandudno train will already be merging with the existing Liverpool service at Chester.' Its the fate of that Bangor-Manchester service that we're contemplating in this review.

(I know that TfW's agenda is out of some posters' usual sphere of interest. In all honesty, Northern services east of Manchester are outside mine.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It makes sense for the Wigan-Hazel Grove to be an EMU, so that might prevent it going to Southport

Class 769. Indeed, that's the first thing they were intended for when first conceived!

. Also, I am not sure you can easily access the Southport lines from Chat Moss / WCML, it would probably have to go to Wigan North Western?

Edited again. I'm half asleep.

You can get from the WCML to Wallgate and from Ince to the NW bays. So objection returned

The only decent reason not to do it, then, is if it would be timed so it could use P6 at North Western which may be slightly easier to path. But if the Liverpool terminator would be sat there and so it'd have to use the bays, then Wallgate would only be worse in blocking, for a very short time, access to the barely-used P1 at North Western.

Talking of connections from Southport, though, the best place to do that is probably Salford Crescent or Bolton to/from the Blackpools.

 

[Ianno87]

There is no need for diesels under the wires and conflicting movements just to keep the Sandergrounders happy.

Class 769. Indeed, that's the first thing they were intended for when first conceived!



Edited again. I'm half asleep.

You can get from the WCML to Wallgate and from Ince to the NW bays. So objection returned

The only decent reason not to do it, then, is if it would be timed so it could use P6 at North Western which may be slightly easier to path. But if the Liverpool terminator would be sat there and so it'd have to use the bays, then Wallgate would only be worse in blocking, for a very short time, access to the barely-used P1 at North Western.

Talking of connections from Southport, though, the best place to do that is probably Salford Crescent or Bolton to/from the Blackpools.

The main issue would be needing (almost certainly) EMU* performance to be pathed on the WCML. Plus a flat conflict across the Up Fast at Golborne then again at Springs Branch (to get to Wallgate) indeed ain't great.

*Wity bi-modes they'd need to change on the move before getting into Wallgate, which the WCML wires may not be fit for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main issue would be needing (almost certainly) EMU performance to be pathed on the WCML.

A Class 769 on electric is an EMU

Plus a flat conflict across the Up Fast at Golborne then again at Springs Branch (to get to Wallgate) indeed ain't great.

True, though this is only avoided if P6 is available at Wigan NW at the time it needs to arrive. If you have to use the bays, the conflict is the same (plus NW P1 very briefly, but that is hardly used at all).

 

[Ianno87]

A Class 769 on electric is an EMU

Point added above about where these would need to change over, and whether the WCML wires are fit for that.

 

[daodao]

TfW intend to operate three services along the coast from 2022: Holyhead-Cardiff/Birmingham, Llandudno-Liverpool (with a Shrewsbury/Cardiff portion joining at Chester), and Bangor-Manchester.

From 2022, a Llandudno train will already be merging with the existing Liverpool service at Chester.

Thanks for the information that it is intended that there will be 3 tph on the North Wales line from 2022 - I was not aware of this. The issue is how to accommodate a 1 tph TfW train from N.Wales approaching Manchester via the Chat Moss line, given that the Mid Cheshire line is not suitable, it is not realistic to extend TfW services across the Pennines, and 2 tph provided by the same TOC are desirable on the Manchester to Chester service via Warrington.

 

[Watershed]

A Class 769 on electric is an EMU

I don't think Northern intend to change over modes whilst moving. So if running to Wigan Wallgate via Golborne you'd be running in diesel mode from the last stop before Wigan Station Jn, which will be Eccles until Golborne station opens. Even then, you'll be running on diesel on the WCML.

So basically if you want to extend the service to Southport you are hamstrung by diesel operation on the WCML.

 

[krus_aragon]

Thanks for the information that it is intended that there will be 3 tph on the North Wales line from 2022 - I was not aware of this. The issue is how to accommodate a 1 tph TfW train from N.Wales approaching Manchester via the Chat Moss line, given that the Mid Cheshire line is not suitable, it is not realistic to extend TfW services across the Pennines, and 2 tph provided by the same TOC are desirable on the Manchester to Chester service via Warrington.

Quite alright.

I agree with you as a whole, but don't feel that it's so essential that both services on Chester-Warrington-Manchester are operated by the same TOC. Clockface operation to the same terminal: yes, I can see the appeal of that.

 

[Greybeard33]

I don't understand how this is a workable alternative.

The service from North Wales arrives at Chester at xx:48 and the Crewe service departs Chester at xx:53, so far so good. However then the shuttle arrives at Crewe at xx:19.

The N Wales service would terminate at Crewe about 5 minutes earlier than the shuttle does (no need for a 6 minute dwell at Chester). Passengers for Manchester Airport would change to Northern at Crewe - Option C provides 2tph between Crewe and the Airport. Passengers for Manchester would probably change to the Northern Leeds service at Chester, rather than to the TfW S Wales service at Crewe.

 

[WatcherZero]

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 ?

Southport and Chester rail markets are nearly identical!
4.7m and 5m station entries and exits respectively, both the predominant flow is on Merseyrail services.

(ONS 2011 Census declared commuter journeys between postcodes)
DataShine: Commute

 

[peters]

Quite alright.

I agree with you as a whole, but don't feel that it's so essential that both services on Chester-Warrington-Manchester are operated by the same TOC. Clockface operation to the same terminal: yes, I can see the appeal of that.

Some mentioned two different operators can create a problem as you can end up with an operator specific ticket that is not valid on the next service but if passengers fully understand the implications of buying the cheapest ticket then it's an advantage to have two operators competing against each other, as it can bring down the fares.

The N Wales service would terminate at Crewe about 5 minutes earlier than the shuttle does (no need for a 6 minute dwell at Chester). Passengers for Manchester Airport would change to Northern at Crewe - Option C provides 2tph between Crewe and the Airport. Passengers for Manchester would probably change to the Northern Leeds service at Chester, rather than to the TfW S Wales service at Crewe.

Sorry I misread the proposal in an earlier post. Although, I still think that may be less acceptable to the Welsh than the direct service to Manchester getting slower, even if it makes journeys to Manchester Airport easier.

Southport and Chester rail markets are nearly identical!
4.7m and 5m station entries and exits respectively, both the predominant flow is on Merseyrail services.

(ONS 2011 Census declared commuter journeys between postcodes)
DataShine: Commute

Same figures also show Southport had 37k passengers changing trains there while Chester had 763k, so overall that means for every 5 passengers using Southport station there are 6 using Chester.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, though the number travelling towards Manchester overall is lower than Southport, its mainly acting as a hub for north wales.

 

[peters]

Yes, though the number travelling towards Manchester overall is lower than Southport, its mainly acting as a hub for north wales.

A lot of the interchanges at Chester seem to be those from the Wirral changing on to trains towards Manchester and Crewe. Given how often I hear people in Cheshire mention that they are travelling to Wales, the number who do so by train seem to be very few (the number on the M56/A55 must be very high.)

Doing some comparisons with stations on the Southport and Chester routes, it's interesting both Westhoughton and Northwich have similar populations and their stations have similar usage, despite Westhoughton having a half-hourly service and being closer to Manchester. If you consider Greenbank station is located within the boundary of Northwich town as well then Westhoughton's figures are even less impressive. No wonder GMCA said 3tph between Southport and Manchester isn't viable.

 

[WatcherZero]

Which Westhoughton station? both Daisy Hill and Westhoughton are 5 minutes walk from the high street (one just SE the other North)
Daisy hill has 2tph (3tph in high peak) via the Atherton line and Westhoughton has an additional 2tph via the Bolton line.

 

[Jozhua]

I've heard rumours the proposed timetable solutions will be unworkable anyway? If anyone can confirm or deny this, that would be helpful.

Ultimately, we need some sort of plan for getting the city out of this mess. Picking up the Northern Hub seems like the fastest way of doing so, along with upgrading Salford Crescent and surrounding stations/junctions to make sure that trains arrive closer to when they are supposed to at Castlefield.

 

[peters]

Which Westhoughton station? both Daisy Hill and Westhoughton are 5 minutes walk from the high street (one just SE the other North)
Daisy hill has 2tph (3tph in high peak) via the Atherton line and Westhoughton has an additional 2tph via the Bolton line.

Westhoughton and Northwich are even more similar than I thought then, if they both have two stations. Although, neither of Northwich's stations are particularly convenient for the town centre and are both served by trains on the same route. Strangely in Westhoughton, like Northwich, the station which bears the name of the town gets slightly fewer passengers than the other station in the town. Regardless of the direct comparison the stats are still not impressive enough for me to disagree with GMCA on 3 trains for Southport being too many.