Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Rail Ranger]

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.

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

Do the options use more crews/units than the present timetable?

Perhaps for one you'd convince Southport to accept a reduction to 1tph if it was to the Airport instead of Vic and used decent quality rolling stock?

 

[Ianno87]

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

There is a difference between
a) Totally undeliverable, and
b) Undeliverable by May 2022

The Cheshire level crossings fall into the former category (possibly, short of a programe of bridging level crossings or whatever), whereas train crew falls into the latter.

The ideal end state needs to be agreed, and then the things that need to fall into place to make that happen, and then how long that will take to happen, to set the 'target' timetable change for this all to happen. Train crew/rolling stock is solvable with enough time and money to make it happen.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

Therefore surely the plan can’t be for things to continue as they are beyond May 2022?

 

[peters]

Do the options use more crews/units than the present timetable?

Just a thought, I've been told some of the movements for Mid-Cheshire services need to be crewed by a Manchester Victoria driver due to an ECS movement via Denton or Warrington being required but most are crewed by Piccadilly drivers. Therefore, doesn't any delay in deciding which option to take forward mean that Northern have no idea which routes they'll need to train extra drivers to cover?

There is a difference between
a) Totally undeliverable, and
b) Undeliverable by May 2022

The Cheshire level crossings fall into the former category (possibly, short of a programe of bridging level crossings or whatever), whereas train crew falls into the latter.

We seem to have a lot of rumours about why a level crossing on the Mid-Cheshire line prevents option C from happening but no hard facts about the exact issue and whether it is resolvable or not.

According to a media report the reasons for a second Mid-Cheshire service not going ahead were

capacity constraints at Mickle Trafford junction – north east of Chester – and Stockport station/ Edgeley junction.

Rail bosses find ANOTHER problem preventing two Mid Cheshire Line trains an hour

A PROMISE made to Northwich and Knutsford rail users for two trains an hour is now looking less likely than ever to be kept.

www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk

Both Chester to Manchester lines go through Mickle Trafford, so if there is an issue there then it might mean the issue might be that diverting the TfW Rail service wouldn't create a path for an additional service between Warrington and Chester.

 

[Killingworth]

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

When I first read the consultation documents I spotted that TPEs South Pennine route remained from Cleethorpes to the Airport in Option A, but in B and C it became a Northern service from Cleethorpes to Liverpool.

Within a couple of days that was admitted to be a mistake and TPE would continue for the revised route, but the details remained online for some time. Now it seems it was typical of lack of attention to operational details that cast doubt on viability of any of the options.

Further extending long distance services across Manchester, from any direction, might help flow across Castlefield but it adds to the risk of accumulating delays from across the country. That South Pennine service picks up quite enough delays with freight conflicts around Grimsby and Scunthorpe, crossing the ECML, congestion between Meadowhall and Sheffield, the Hope Valley and the final lap from Stockport. At least it can be terminated in Piccadilly if too late and there are other services to the airport. The chances of it arriving on time in Liverpool would depend on a lot more than the Castlefield conflict zone - and again in the opposite direction to arrive on time in Cleethorpes.

 

[setdown]

Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but what exactly is the issue with level crossings on the Northwich route, is it clearance? 158s and 175s used to run on that route back in the good old days.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

I wouldn't say that.
North Wales/Liverpool has 4tph via Chester/Merseyrail.
The through service is a useful extra, not a necessity.
I'd say anyway that the Manchester service (with connections at Warrington) is more strategically important than Liverpool (jobs, connectivity, airport etc).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't say that.
North Wales/Liverpool has 4tph via Chester/Merseyrail.
The through service is a useful extra, not a necessity.

True. It's also neither here nor there with regard to the Castlefield issue.

I'd say anyway that the Manchester service (with connections at Warrington) is more strategically important than Liverpool (jobs, connectivity etc).

Completely agreed. Those suggesting there is any chance of it being withdrawn are in cloud cuckoo land. The Welsh Government will shout a lot louder than OPSTA.

The only question is what is binned to keep it, and the only answer seems to be one of the two Northern Chester-Leeds services. If Northern are short of stock and staff, as seems to be the case, removing it will help them, too.

I would put money on this being what happens.

 

[Watershed]

Completely agreed. Those suggesting there is any chance of it being withdrawn are in cloud cuckoo land. The Welsh Government will shout a lot louder than OPSTA.

The Welsh Government is not in charge of Network Rail. They are a notable stakeholder in this consultation, but ultimately the DfT and Network Rail are the ones making the decisions here. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some stakeholders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Welsh Government is not in charge of Network Rail. They are a notable stakeholder in this consultation, but ultimately the DfT and Network Rail are the ones making the decisions here. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some stakeholders.

The DfT will not annoy the WG when it has the option of annoying a very small number of users of Northern instead (and actually helping the Northern staff/stock issue).

 

[Ianno87]

The DfT will not annoy the WG when it has the option of annoying a very small number of users of Northern instead (and actually helping the Northern staff/stock issue).

Apart from the small issue of politics trying to keep the "red wall" seats on-side, which may trump England-Wales diplomacy.

 

[peters]

Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but what exactly is the issue with level crossings on the Northwich route, is it clearance? 158s and 175s used to run on that route back in the good old days.

When the full timetable is operational 175s run the route on a daily basis in the form of an overnight Chester to Manchester Airport service. There seems to be rumours without a verifiable source relating to the reason but there's rumours is relates to the number of trains that can run through a level crossing through Mouldsworth. I'm not sure why that is as under the current full timetable the Chester bound train arrives at Mickle Trafford 3 minutes before the Manchester bound train arrives, so for most of the hour there's nothing going over the level crossing.

The DfT will not annoy the WG when it has the option of annoying a very small number of users of Northern instead (and actually helping the Northern staff/stock issue).

If the Welsh passengers for Manchester are on a train which doesn't go via Warrington then in the off-peak period Northern could get away with using 2 car sets on the Chester-Warrington-Manchester route.

Apart from the small issue of politics trying to keep the "red wall" seats on-side, which may trump England-Wales diplomacy.

Weaver Vale (which includes both Runcorn and Northwich) is a marginal seat currently held by Labour. Saying the current Chester to Manchester arrangements will be retained instead of giving Runcorn East and Northwich additional services won't improve the Conservative's chances. Chester itself was a marginal seat (there were only 7 votes between Labour and the Conservatives at the 2015 election) but having a hardworking Labour MP who isn't a Corbynite has gone down very well in Chester and he got a majority of over 6,000 at the last election when the Conservatives were making gains nationally.

Cheshire is also an area where the Conservatives used to have control of the two of the largest unitary authorities in the country (Cheshire West & Cheshire East) and the PCC was Conservative. Now as things stand Cheshire West has a Labour council, a Labour/Independent coalition run Cheshire East council and there's a Labour PCC. The Conservatives have really been losing support in Cheshire in recent years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from the small issue of politics trying to keep the "red wall" seats on-side, which may trump England-Wales diplomacy.

Well, we've placed our bets, let's see what does happen.

 

[SJL2020]

Apart from the small issue of politics trying to keep the "red wall" seats on-side, which may trump England-Wales diplomacy.

The 'red wall' extends into NE Wales, at least.

The Conservatives picked up 4 seats in North Wales in the 2019 election, and came very close to picking up a 5th.

 

[The Planner]

Forgive me if I’ve missed this, but what exactly is the issue with level crossings on the Northwich route, is it clearance? 158s and 175s used to run on that route back in the good old days.

Increase in trains likely increases the risk category of the level crossings to the point of it requiring an intervention.

 

[Glenn1969]

The "2nd Chester -Leeds service is currently a Manchester- Leeds service. Not sure how extending that would cause stock issues when Option B and C shift the Liverpool CLC fast to TPE which would presumably compensate?

 

[Watershed]

The "2nd Chester -Leeds service is currently a Manchester- Leeds service. Not sure how extending that would cause stock issues when Option B and C shift the Liverpool CLC fast to TPE which would presumably compensate?

The Liverpool-Airport via CLC fast takes up 3 diagrams for an hourly service. I think some of those are supposed to be doubled up too.

Manchester-Chester currently takes 58 minutes on the ex-Leeds service, so it should take at most 3 diagrams for an additional hourly service. Possibly just 2, if you move the existing Victoria turnaround to Chester, but obviously that might not work with the timings.

But clearly that bit is a like-for-like swap at worst, so units isn't the issue there. It may be for other changes though, and there is the thorny issue of traincrew to consider for any service increase.

 

[SuperNova]

When I first read the consultation documents I spotted that TPEs South Pennine route remained from Cleethorpes to the Airport in Option A, but in B and C it became a Northern service from Cleethorpes to Liverpool.

Within a couple of days that was admitted to be a mistake and TPE would continue for the revised route, but the details remained online for some time. Now it seems it was typical of lack of attention to operational details that cast doubt on viability of any of the options.

A mistake on a document is not typical of lack of attention to detail. Those in the industry were well aware that it was going to be a TPE service, that was a mistake made by the DfT comms team - not the industry. Don't read too much into it.

 

[Jozhua]

Yes the industry has told Transport for the North that all three options are undeliverable. The industry has quoted issues with level crossings in Cheshire (preventing the diversion of the TfW North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich) and a shortage of rolling stock and train crew on Northern.

It doesn't surprise me. Thanks for letting me know the details of what was going on BTW

Castlefield isn't the only bottleneck on the network, it's a big one, but not the only one. There is rolling stock, staffing and a lot of other congested infrastructure.

A lot of people look at re-organising services around the needs of Castlefield, forgetting there is an entire network of routes each with their own specific requirements.

The only way to address the issue is to invest in renewals and upgrades for the whole region (including Castlefield) to bring the infrastructure up to scratch.

Salford Crescent could possibly handle another platform, reduce bottlenecks there. Victoria could possibly add some more terminating platforms at the west side.

I'm sure there are other grade seperations, junction remodelling, etc that could be made to optimise movements.

Long term plans also need to be drawn up to decide on city and regional transport networks and the projected demand for journeys along the corridor, especially when HS2 arrives at Piccadilly. (May encourage significantly more people to use rail to reach Birmingham/South West especially). My thoughts are a tunnel, but it would be good for some studies and planning for that to be done, in preperation for breaking ground hopefully by the end of the decade.

 

[daodao]

It doesn't surprise me. Thanks for letting me know the details of what was going on BTW

Castlefield isn't the only bottleneck on the network, it's a big one, but not the only one. There is rolling stock, staffing and a lot of other congested infrastructure.

A lot of people look at re-organising services around the needs of Castlefield, forgetting there is an entire network of routes each with their own specific requirements.

The only way to address the issue is to invest in renewals and upgrades for the whole region (including Castlefield) to bring the infrastructure up to scratch.

Salford Crescent could possibly handle another platform, reduce bottlenecks there. Victoria could possibly add some more terminating platforms at the west side.

I'm sure there are other grade seperations, junction remodelling, etc that could be made to optimise movements.

Long term plans also need to be drawn up to decide on city and regional transport networks and the projected demand for journeys along the corridor, especially when HS2 arrives at Piccadilly. (May encourage significantly more people to use rail to reach Birmingham/South West especially). My thoughts are a tunnel, but it would be good for some studies and planning for that to be done, in preperation for breaking ground hopefully by the end of the decade.

There is little money for any of the above. The UK government is in dire financial straits post Brexit/Covid, so there is a need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. The consultation was intended to redesign services to fit pre-existing infrastructure, and this is what needs to be done. I prefer option C, but feel that it is insufficiently radical in parts in pruning services to make them workable. Hopefully, there will be no more expenditure on HS2 north of Crewe or on new lines for NPR; that would be profligate.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is little money for any of the above. The UK government is in dire financial straits post Brexit/Covid, so there is a need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. The consultation was intended to redesign services to fit pre-existing infrastructure, and this is what needs to be done. I prefer option C, but feel that it is insufficiently radical in parts in pruning services to make them workable. Hopefully, there will be no more expenditure on HS2 north of Crewe or on new lines for NPR; that would be profligate.

Lol daodao. That old chestnut of HS2. It’s happening. Profligate would be building a 7-platform HS2 station in Birmingham capable of taking Birmingham to Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle & Scotland yet it would only be useful for 3 tph to London.

 

[Glenn1969]

I'll believe it's happening when I hear about shovels in the ground

 

[Purple Orange]

I'll believe it's happening when I hear about shovels in the ground

Ok Glenn. In the meantime, keep your eye out for the various gates the phase 2b passes through.

 

[Glenn1969]

I still think it will be pulled to save money post Covid.

 

[Ianno87]

I still think it will be pulled to save money post Covid.

Research into how it's actually funded.

 

[Glenn1969]

I'm talking about the Northern part. Particularly 2b which is nowhere near getting approval. I also see NPR as a 2050 project. Sorry to be so negative but Northern railways have never been investment priorities because in the eyes of successive Governments they need too much subsidy to be worthy of investment however much the investment might be needed

 

[Purple Orange]

Perhaps @Glenn1969 and @daodao you should set up a thread dedicated to this issue?

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is little money for any of the above. The UK government is in dire financial straits post Brexit/Covid, so there is a need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth.

Has the Road Investment Strategy been scrapped yet? While that £20+bn waste still exists, I struggle to believe any claims that the government is in dire financial straits and/or serious about tackling the climate emergency.

Lol daodao. That old chestnut of HS2. It’s happening. Profligate would be building a 7-platform HS2 station in Birmingham c.apable of taking Birmingham to Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle & Scotland yet it would only be useful for 3 tph to London.

Profligate would be running trains at over 200mph on a route with no air competition. That HS2 station in Birmingham really needs a redesign so that XC services from Bristol and beyond can use it and continue on HS2 metals to Manchester and Leeds, thus creating a route that competes with air rather than shuttle services from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds.

Going back to Manchester, how much do people think increasing Metrolink from every 12 to every 6 minutes between Picc. and Vic. would help?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is little money for any of the above. The UK government is in dire financial straits post Brexit/Covid, so there is a need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. The consultation was intended to redesign services to fit pre-existing infrastructure, and this is what needs to be done. I prefer option C, but feel that it is insufficiently radical in parts in pruning services to make them workable. Hopefully, there will be no more expenditure on HS2 north of Crewe or on new lines for NPR; that would be profligate.

And even if you do build the new stuff, do we really want Castlefield to be a mess for another 5-10 years while it is built? We need to reduce services to a level that they can be operated punctually now, and compensate using longer trains where necessary. The 2-car DMU on the mainline needs to end.

With regard to your point of it not being radical enough, excuse me if I've missed it above, what do you propose as an "option C+" that takes into account the "can't add a second Mid Cheshire train" constraint?