Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Peregrine 4903]

If the timetable is one of those consulted on (or very nearly so), the decision date for December 2022 implementation is a few months away.

If the timetable is something else, then the decision date for December 2022 is some time last year.




It helps - but not as much as it should. AIUI TL Drivers are advised not to enter a platform with the mid platform signal at danger, so will wait at the signal in rear of the platform until it shows a YY or better.

When the ATO is on, it quite sensibly ignores this rule, and you will have a train entering the platform at linespeed with the tail lights of the departing train just off the ramp. I saw this happen at St Pancras last week, wry impressive.




It actually has a maximum technical headway of 75 seconds. However the minimum station dwell of 45 seconds (as everything normally stops at all stations) adds to that to make the true headway 2 minutes.

However the normal planned station dwell is 60seconds, and with a little extra rounded to make the half minute, 2 1/2 minutes is therefore the timetabled gap between services.

I was talking about the headway in the tpr's. I know the technical headway is obviously lower, but it will never be planned like that, unless there is a schedule error.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that what I remember as being called a "Quango"?

A QuANGO is a Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation, if I recall, which is something that is partly Government controlled but kind-of separate. British Rail was one example, I suppose Network Rail is as well, or more locally something like Blackpool Transport.

The term is no longer in common use but there are still organisations of that nature.

 

[geoffk]

I agree that the Scotland, Newcastle, Llandudno services don’t need to go through Castlefield, but they do need to get to Manchester.

I would also say that people don’t want Castlefield to be both a metro line and a long distance line, but they want both in Manchester. That requires a new line, therefore the desire for Castlefield is to be either a metro line or an intercity line. I’d say it is more suited to being a metro.

However this all comes back to the issue that rail services through Manchester are having to use inadequate infrastructure for more than one purpose and two pieces of infrastructure are needed:

1. New terminal platforms
2. A new tunnel.

3. a flyover/diverunder at Ordsall Lane. Diagrams were produced for this recently (does someone have a reference?), but the road over- and under-bridges would be a challenge.
4. a means of removing freight trains from Castlefield.

 

[scrapy]

I'm showing my bias here, but why is the Cheshire East guy against Knutsford (a town in the local authority of Cheshire East) receiving a 2nd tph? It's already been proven that the service from Chester to Manchester Airport only arrives/d at the airport after 10:30, making it useless for early morning arrivals and departures.

Oh well, at least he's thinking of the bigger picture and the greater good, so I will commend him on that.

Yes does seem that Cheshire East seem more bothered about the line through Warrington(a separate unitary authority), than the lines that actually run through the Cheshire East area. They should be looking at ways of getting 2tph on the mid Cheshire line, and looking to the future when capacity allows ensuring that Macclesfield and Poynton gets the 2tph stoppers promised in 2018 but never delivered and Congleton is prioritised for extra stops and services as 2tph desirable there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes does seem that Cheshire East seem more bothered about the line through Warrington(a separate unitary authority), than the lines that actually run through the Cheshire East area.

That matter is very much in the mind of rail-knowledgeable residents in Cheshire East.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes does seem that Cheshire East seem more bothered about the line through Warrington(a separate unitary authority), than the lines that actually run through the Cheshire East area. They should be looking at ways of getting 2tph on the mid Cheshire line, and looking to the future when capacity allows ensuring that Macclesfield and Poynton gets the 2tph stoppers promised in 2018 but never delivered and Congleton is prioritised for extra stops and services as 2tph desirable there.

In my previous post I misidentified the Cheshire East representative who spoke in the meeting. It was Craig Browne, the Deputy Leader of Cheshire East Council and Leader of the Independent Group on the council. He also chairs the Cheshire East Highways and Transport Committee.

Neither Warrington Council nor Cheshire West and Chester Council are directly represented on the Rail North Committee, so I believe Craig was speaking on behalf of all three Cheshire unitary authorities. Hence his focus on services through Warrington and from Chester to the Airport.

 

[YorksLad12]

In my previous post I misidentified the Cheshire East representative who spoke in the meeting. It was Craig Browne, the Deputy Leader of Cheshire East Council and Leader of the Independent Group on the council. He also chairs the Cheshire East Highways and Transport Committee.

Neither Warrington Council nor Cheshire West and Chester Council are directly represented on the Rail North Committee, so I believe Craig was speaking on behalf of all three Cheshire unitary authorities. Hence his focus on services through Warrington and from Chester to the Airport.

If it's the same way it used to be with Rail North Ltd. there are 25 Local Transport Authorities divided into 11 director areas. It might only be 19 LTAs now; I seem to recall the Derby/shire and Nottingham/shire pairs, Stoke-on-Trent and one other aren't in TfN (but were in Rail North). So this might have been a Directors meeting, rather than the full group.

 

[Jack Hay]

In my previous post I misidentified the Cheshire East representative who spoke in the meeting. It was Craig Browne, the Deputy Leader of Cheshire East Council and Leader of the Independent Group on the council. He also chairs the Cheshire East Highways and Transport Committee.

Neither Warrington Council nor Cheshire West and Chester Council are directly represented on the Rail North Committee, so I believe Craig was speaking on behalf of all three Cheshire unitary authorities. Hence his focus on services through Warrington and from Chester to the Airport.

I'm familiar with the local government structure hereabouts and I can confirm that Cllr Craig Browne does have the role of speaking on behalf of all three Cheshire and Warrington councils. However, either he has been badly briefed or he does not understand. He should also have been making the case on behalf of Knutsford and Northwich for the two trains per hour which were a Dec 2017 franchise commitment but never delivered, and are only offered in Option C. In normal times (i.e. pre-Covid, and before the long-running Northern strikes) when passenger numbers could be reliably counted, Knutsford was a station with 500,000 footfall per annum but only an hourly service. There are very few (less than the fingers of one hand) stations in UK with such high footfall and such a poor service. It is not Cllr Browne's role to arbitrate between competing interests but to speak for all those he represents. I will write to him about this.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm familiar with the local government structure hereabouts and I can confirm that Cllr Craig Browne does have the role of speaking on behalf of all three Cheshire and Warrington councils. However, either he has been badly briefed or he does not understand. He should also have been making the case on behalf of Knutsford and Northwich for the two trains per hour which were a Dec 2017 franchise commitment but never delivered, and are only offered in Option C. In normal times (i.e. pre-Covid, and before the long-running Northern strikes) when passenger numbers could be reliably counted, Knutsford was a station with 500,000 footfall per annum but only an hourly service. There are very few (less than the fingers of one hand) stations in UK with such high footfall and such a poor service. It is not Cllr Browne's role to arbitrate between competing interests but to speak for all those he represents. I will write to him about this.

In defence of Cllr Browne, "politics is the art of the possible". Option B+ does at least restore the full pre-pandemic service on the Mid-Cheshire line, including 2tph in the morning and evening peaks. Cllr Browne would have got short shrift from fellow committee members if he had demanded service enhancements on his local line at a time when a number of other Northern authorities are being asked to accept substantial service cuts. TfN can only influence central government through members compromising their parochial interests in order to agree a unified position for the North of England as a whole.

Furthermore, the "Roadmap" section of the TfN paper contains hints that the Task Force is still considering rerouting the TfW N Wales service via Northwich and Knutsford, per Option C, as a further step after Option B+, for possible introduction in 2023:

5.5 As the Transport for Wales driver training programme for its new train fleet reaches completion (May 2023), there is an opportunity to work with relevant stakeholders on the right solution for the North Wales service to Manchester given its importance to union connectivity between UK nations. It is recommended that further work be undertaken to assess demand, cost and performance implications of any changes to the routeing of North Wales services, as well as alternative uses of paths on the Castlefield Corridor. Required level crossing interventions to reduce risk levels are currently being developed, with two locations requiring increased barrier down time and only one likely to require changes to infrastructure.

The "required level crossing interventions" is clearly a reference to the Mid Cheshire line, where Network Rail is known to have expressed concern about Option C because of level crossing risk. The rerouting of the N Wales service would result in multiple stations in both the Cheshire West and Chester and the Warrington council areas losing their direct Airport service, which was the concern Cllr Browne voiced in the meeting.

For the avoidance of doubt, the December 2017 franchise commitment was for a second hourly Northern service between Greenbank and Piccadilly, not for a through service from Chester and N Wales via the Mid Cheshire.

 

[domcoop7]

Still no decision published? They must surely be in serious danger of running out of time!

Saying that, and judging by the comments on this thread (which no doubt reflect the challenges the planners face) wouldn't it be better for a further 6 months delay than to get the wrong answer again?

All the problems being faced seem to me to be as a result of previous stupid decisions - decisions taken at the time which were (as one poster said above, sorry forgot who) going to solve the Manchester problems forever.

We need one main station in Manchester to stop unnecessary differing destinations of service and save money. Great! Let's close Central and reduce capacity at Oxford Road as we can run more to platforms 13 / 14 and use Picc/Vic link instead. We can also close Exchange and concentrate at Victoria.

Oh that's not worked. And there's no Picc-Vic link anymore. No problem! Metrolink's coming online soon which will deal with interchanges we can't move, and for the rest let's build a "Windsor Link" to move them to Piccadilly.

Oh that's not worked. Don't you worry! Now we have Metrolink, we can move more services to Piccadilly (if I were so inclined I could call it some kind of unpronounceable German name Hauptoffkbahn or something). Victoria can then be scaled back and made more standardised with better reliability as a purely local station. We can also release mega funds by selling off un-needed and unused station space to build an Arena.

But trains are still crowded in the peak. And now we have a new airport link we paid ££££ for. Just the solution! We'll just shift as much as we possibly can squeeze onto 13/14 and then onto the airport. And for everything else, we'll route it into Piccadilly and reverse it.

But trains are still crowded. And now every man and their dog is demanding direct services to Manchester Airport. Never fret! Let's just build an "Ordsall Curve" at a cost of ££££££, so that we can shove even more services through 13/14 on to the airport. That'll sort it.

It hasn't though. It's made it worse. And now we have three, five and six car sets that are always late, mess up the paths and end up with cancellations. Don't be so negative! All we need to do is re-write the timetable and issue a new franchise agreement with promises of yet more direct trains to the airport. Arriva say they can deliver it.

And we are now where we are, because of all the previous radical suggestions that were going to sort everything, but didn't.

 

[Killingworth]

Still no decision published? They must surely be in serious danger of running out of time!

Saying that, and judging by the comments on this thread (which no doubt reflect the challenges the planners face) wouldn't it be better for a further 6 months delay than to get the wrong answer again?

All the problems being faced seem to me to be as a result of previous stupid decisions - decisions taken at the time which were (as one poster said above, sorry forgot who) going to solve the Manchester problems forever.

We need one main station in Manchester to stop unnecessary differing destinations of service and save money. Great! Let's close Central and reduce capacity at Oxford Road as we can run more to platforms 13 / 14 and use Picc/Vic link instead. We can also close Exchange and concentrate at Victoria.

Oh that's not worked. And there's no Picc-Vic link anymore. No problem! Metrolink's coming online soon which will deal with interchanges we can't move, and for the rest let's build a "Windsor Link" to move them to Piccadilly.

Oh that's not worked. Don't you worry! Now we have Metrolink, we can move more services to Piccadilly (if I were so inclined I could call it some kind of unpronounceable German name Hauptoffkbahn or something). Victoria can then be scaled back and made more standardised with better reliability as a purely local station. We can also release mega funds by selling off un-needed and unused station space to build an Arena.

But trains are still crowded in the peak. And now we have a new airport link we paid ££££ for. Just the solution! We'll just shift as much as we possibly can squeeze onto 13/14 and then onto the airport. And for everything else, we'll route it into Piccadilly and reverse it.

But trains are still crowded. And now every man and their dog is demanding direct services to Manchester Airport. Never fret! Let's just build an "Ordsall Curve" at a cost of ££££££, so that we can shove even more services through 13/14 on to the airport. That'll sort it.

It hasn't though. It's made it worse. And now we have three, five and six car sets that are always late, mess up the paths and end up with cancellations. Don't be so negative! All we need to do is re-write the timetable and issue a new franchise agreement with promises of yet more direct trains to the airport. Arriva say they can deliver it.

And we are now where we are, because of all the previous radical suggestions that were going to sort everything, but didn't.

Superimposed long container freight trains for Trafford Park seem to be missing here!

 

[daodao]

All we need to do is re-write the timetable and issue a new franchise agreement with promises of yet more direct trains to the airport.

The current option B+

• retains hourly train services to the Airport (via the Castlefield corridor) from here, there (including NE England/Scotland/Wales) and everywhere
• abandons the principle in the original consultation (particularly option C) of regular 30 minute interval local services, e.g. by splitting the Southport service between Oxford Road and Victoria, so a second stopping service on the CLC line can't be accommodated
• maintains use of the Ordsall curve for trains from the Standedge line to Manchester, which could be diverted via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly, further relieving pressure on the Castlefield line
• makes little use of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, which could accommodate 4 coach stopping trains from the Standedge line.

IMO, it won't solve the Castlefield line problems. These won't go away until a radical decision is made to remove long-distance services from the Castlefield line and confine its use to local Northern-run services from within historic Lancashire, plus the Sheffield-Liverpool through service that has no practicable alternative route.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The current option B+

• makes little use of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, which could accommodate 4 coach stopping trains from the Standedge line.

It does seem strange to have two existing east-facing bay platforms at Manchester Victoria station that could be used to better effect. Currently Northern seem happy with 3-car Class 195 units and the TPE Class 185 units are also 3-car units, as the lack of cross-Pennine electrification means that currently only diesel traction can be used, either on the old Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway line via Rochdale or the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge via Ashton-under-Lyne route.

Can I ask a question here, not being fully conversant with specific rail matters. Has there ever been any officially sanctioned discussions on the future electrification on the line in the Miles Platting area to the area near to Ashburys station? Many years ago, I recall Saturday summer holiday trains from Nottingham to Blackpool using that route.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Furthermore, the "Roadmap" section of the TfN paper contains hints that the Task Force is still considering rerouting the TfW N Wales service via Northwich and Knutsford, per Option C, as a further step after Option B+, for possible introduction in 2023:

5.5 As the Transport for Wales driver training programme for its new train fleet reaches completion (May 2023), there is an opportunity to work with relevant stakeholders on the right solution for the North Wales service to Manchester given its importance to union connectivity between UK nations. It is recommended that further work be undertaken to assess demand, cost and performance implications of any changes to the routeing of North Wales services, as well as alternative uses of paths on the Castlefield Corridor. Required level crossing interventions to reduce risk levels are currently being developed, with two locations requiring increased barrier down time and only one likely to require changes to infrastructure.

The "required level crossing interventions" is clearly a reference to the Mid Cheshire line, where Network Rail is known to have expressed concern about Option C because of level crossing risk. The rerouting of the N Wales service would result in multiple stations in both the Cheshire West and Chester and the Warrington council areas losing their direct Airport service, which was the concern Cllr Browne voiced in the meeting.

Given "its importance to union connectivity", it is rather concerning that "the right solution for the North Wales service to Manchester" is implied to be increasing journey times by re-routing it via Altrincham. If the direct line through Sale and into Manchester Central was still available (and it was a limited-stop service) then that might well be the faster route, but the detour via Stockport may make maintaining the current journey time into Piccadilly unacheivable, even if the service only calls at Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham and Stockport. In my opinion, the right solution for the North Wales service to Manchester is Holyhead* to Stalybridge calling at Bangor*, Llandudno Junction*, Rhyl*, Flint*, Chester, Warrington Bank Quay, either Earlestown or Newton-Le-Willows and Manchester Victoria using something similar to class 175s.

* I think there should be 1tph between Holyhead and Chester with this calling pattern, with 3 trains per day in each direction (breakfast, lunch and dinner) being the Holyhead-Cardiff fasts, but I'm undecided as to whether the rest of the day would be the Manchesters since I know some are calling for more London services and it might make more sense for the Londons to use this fast Holyhead path in which case I would instead have the Manchesters be a semi-fast (add Prestatyn and Colwyn Bay stops) to one of Llandudno (with Deganwy), Bangor (with Conwy served every two hours) or Caernarfon (with Conwy served every two hours and Y Felinheli every hour).

The current option B+

• retains hourly train services to the Airport (via the Castlefield corridor) from here, there (including NE England/Scotland/Wales) and everywhere
• abandons the principle in the original consultation (particularly option C) of regular 30 minute interval local services, e.g. by splitting the Southport service between Oxford Road and Victoria, so a second stopping service on the CLC line can't be accommodated
• maintains use of the Ordsall curve for trains from the Standedge line to Manchester, which could be diverted via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly (or linked through Victoria with other long-distance fast services, such as the North Wales - Manchester or WCML Manchester-Scotland trains, to avoid the problem of finding somewhere to terminate these given the lack of suitable bay platforms at Victoria), further relieving pressure on the Castlefield line
• makes little use of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, which could accommodate 4 coach stopping trains from the Standedge line (or lengthen the bays to accomodate the TPE services to avoid the choice in the point above). I suppose you could swap the Manchester Piccadilly to Huddersfield (assuming these are currently 3-car 185s and not too long for platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria) with either the Newcastle or Redcar TPE service so that the Newcastle/Redcar goes into PICC (and terminates, instead of going to the airport) and the Huddersfield goes into Victoria. But then, the train at Victoria would be a relatively short distance stopping service with wide doors at thirds and suitable for operating via the Ordsall Chord, so really the bays being on the south side at Victoria (as is the Ordsall Chord) but too short for long-distance services makes them not very useful

IMO, it won't solve the Castlefield line problems. These won't go away until a radical decision is made to remove long-distance services from the Castlefield line and confine its use to local Northern-run services from within historic Lancashire, plus the Sheffield-Liverpool through service that has no practicable alternative route.

Comments added to quote above... I agree with your concluding paragraph however (except perhaps the 'from within historic Lancashire bit' since I'm not sure what 'historic Lancashire' encompases), the Castlefield corridor (as it stands, the upgrade plan that included two additional through platforms at Piccadilly might address this) is not really suitable for long-distance passenger services but there is no realistic alternative for the Sheffield-Liverpool so that one has to stay.

It does seem strange to have two existing east-facing bay platforms at Manchester Victoria station that could be used to better effect. Currently Northern seem happy with 3-car Class 195 units and the TPE Class 185 units are also 3-car units, as the lack of cross-Pennine electrification means that currently only diesel traction can be used, either on the old Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway line via Rochdale or the Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge via Ashton-under-Lyne route.

As noted above, those bays are not ideal. To avoid crossing the path of other services, trains to/from the Rochdale direction would be restricted to platforms 5 and 6 and thence to Salford Crescent and beyond, so having these use the bays (or the Ordsall Chord) is not ideal. Since the WCML Manchester-Scotland services come in via Bolton, it would therefore seem to make sense for these to terminate at Rochdale but unfortunately I doubt the south-facing bay there is long enough for a 397.

Meanwhile, platforms 3 and 4 at Victoria are the optimum ones to use for anything coming in through the Chat Moss route and the Ordsall Chord, and possibly some from the Salford Crescent direction as well. That's a very wide pool of origins/destinations, there's no west-facing bays at Victoria to terminate those trains and platforms 1-4 are all better suited to Stalybridge services than Rochdale ones. So, while services from the Stalybridge direction could in theory use the bays at Manchester Victoria, in practice there are likely to be so many services from the west needing to head towards Stalybridge that there is no need for any more services between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge.

Of course, you may decide that the lines through Victoria station aren't so busy that crossing over between the Rochdale line and the bays and/or the Ordsall Chord / Chat Moss would be a concern.

Can I ask a question here, not being fully conversant with specific rail matters. Has there ever been any officially sanctioned discussions on the future electrification on the line in the Miles Platting area to the area near to Ashburys station? Many years ago, I recall Saturday summer holiday trains from Nottingham to Blackpool using that route.

Is there much using the line in question currently, or was it last used many years ago?

 

[Jack Hay]

The current option B+

• retains hourly train services to the Airport (via the Castlefield corridor) from here, there (including NE England/Scotland/Wales) and everywhere
• abandons the principle in the original consultation (particularly option C) of regular 30 minute interval local services, e.g. by splitting the Southport service between Oxford Road and Victoria, so a second stopping service on the CLC line can't be accommodated
• maintains use of the Ordsall curve for trains from the Standedge line to Manchester, which could be diverted via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly, further relieving pressure on the Castlefield line
• makes little use of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, which could accommodate 4 coach stopping trains from the Standedge line.

IMO, it won't solve the Castlefield line problems. These won't go away until a radical decision is made to remove long-distance services from the Castlefield line and confine its use to local Northern-run services from within historic Lancashire, plus the Sheffield-Liverpool through service that has no practicable alternative route.

You're exactly right. B+ is a timetable proposal cobbled together by politicians rejecting all the proposals that the public were invited to comment on. They do not understand concepts like the maximum number of trains through a corridor or the need for those trains to be closely similar in performance and in origin and destination for the theoretical capacity to be achievable. They promote their idea as '+' when the plus realty means squeezing through note trains than capacity, so they are voting for unreliability. And they are all, every single one, obsessed about having through trains to the airport and will sacrifice any number of regular travellers to other destinations to avoid losing the airport services. Never mind that those services are poorly timed for flights, or infrequent, or slow. They don't know that kind of detail. They are grandstanding and I hope the DfT can see this and throw out this idea. I would go further and suggest they abolish TfN. It has never made a decision in its live except to demand more money. We don't need TfN for that, we can do it ourselves!

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is not in the Speculative Ideas section and is to discuss what is actually proposed in the consultation, by Rail North and/or by the DfT.

I have locked this thread until there are any updates regarding what is formally proposed; if anyone would like us to consider repening the thread when any developments occur, feel free to report this post and include a copy of what you would like to add.

Any suggestions/ideas by any individuals or any organisations other than the above, should be discussed in the Speculative Ideas section please; feel free to continue such discussion in the following thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-could-rail-services-be-improved-in-the-manchester-area.220804/

 

[ainsworth74]

It seems that there has now been a government response to consultation. Some brief information is below but the full information is at the link:

Detail of outcome​

More than 800 passengers and stakeholders provided their views in response to the consultation by the Manchester Recovery Task Force (MRTF).
All contributions have helped produce a timetable structure that reflects the government and rail industry’s commitment to putting passengers at the heart of decision-making on the railway, while also noting affordability challenges, especially post-COVID-19.
This response to the consultation:

• provides a summary of the responses and how the MRTF has sought to take them into account
• outlines consultees’ views regarding the timetabling options that were presented
• responds to feedback and identifies how consultees’ thoughts have informed the timetabling recommendations
• explains the final timetable structure that has been recommended
• explains the next steps to implementing it, including a further round of consultation on the detail

Following analysis of the options, informed by the consultation feedback and further detailed work, the MRTF has recommended that Option B+, an enhanced variation of Option B that was presented in the consultation, will form the basis of a new timetable structure.
The MRTF’s recommendations will be deliverable in December 2022.
The next stage will be to implement the new timetable structure as soon as it can be ready. While detailed planning continues, there will be a second round of consultation on the detail of the timetable, which will be led by the train operators. We expect this consultation to be launched in autumn 2021.
The Department for Transport and Transport for the North will continue to work collaboratively to develop and oversee an agreed roadmap for future development, beyond 2022, of rail service and infrastructure enhancements.

Timetable options to improve rail performance in the north of England

Proposes options to improve train performance in the Manchester area and beyond by altering the north of England rail timetable.

www.gov.uk

Hat tip to @Starmill for spotting the update.

A reminder that if you wish to discuss "your idea for..." or similar type things there is a thread running in speculative ideas which you can find here.

 

[Starmill]

A formal consultation response has today been issued:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/timetable-options-to-improve-rail-performance-in-the-north-of-england

 

[WatcherZero]

People of Southport represent, well done for saving our services on the Southport and Atherton lines and forcing the government to accept a compromise.

Governments consultation now moves on to the next phase, almost as tricky. Negotiating the calling patterns of the services theyve agreed.

 

[Starmill]

I note that the service between Manchester Airport and Barrow-in-Furness / Windermere will need to run via Bolton despite being a three car 195. Something cautioned against multiple times.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah, they say they have made some compromises in order to make it a clockface timetable which was the primary aim.

 

[Ianno87]

Interesting that Option C performed quite well in terms of expressed preferences: 180 of 633 responses. Consultation also notes that C was more expensive to operate, due to extra trains overall, and longer turnround times at destination.

Option B+ to include one early and one late Sheffield-Airport services (seems a reasonable compromise).

Recast of stopping patterns via Warrington Central to retain an hourly through local service. (Fast services pick up Birchwood, Irlam, Urmston etc as I hypothesised a while back)

Manchester-Scotland trains to not stop anywhere between Preston and Manchester on capacity/performance grounds.

Hazel Grove/Alderley Edge services into Piccadilly main shed only (I.e..no longer any direct Bolton-Stockport services)

Also proposes future studies for:
-Infrastructure to restore Sheffield-Airport on all day basis
-Diversion of North Wales service via Northwich
-How to serve Golborne station (B+ has no suitable service)

 

[JonathanH]

I note that the service between Manchester Airport and Barrow-in-Furness / Windermere will need to run via Bolton despite being a three car 195. Something cautioned against multiple times.

Do they have to stop at Bolton?

 

[Starmill]

It's interesting that they think that:

There are ways in which the timetable structure of Option B+ can be
amended to serve the new station planned for Golborne, which Transport for
Greater Manchester is progressing and has funding for. Such plans will need
to be developed further in readiness for completion of this project.

Because it's somewhat difficult to see what these are, other than increasing the overall quantum of trains running between Manchester Piccadilly and Oxford Road, or diverting a service from Bolton to run via Golborne instead.

Do they have to stop at Bolton?

I don't think there's any particular reason they must, beyond that Bolton - Preston at 2tph serving all stations is quite a poor provision and may lack adequate capacity.

 

[Ianno87]

Do they have to stop at Bolton?

I don't think there's any particular reason they must, beyond that Bolton - Preston at 2tph serving all stations is quite a poor provision and may lack adequate capacity.

Keeping Bolton-Castlefield at an even-ish 4tph will be important in spreading the passenger load, otherwise you'll just create bunching of passengers on the remaining services.

 

[WatcherZero]

Interesting that Option C performed quite well in terms of expressed preferences: 180 of 633 responses. Consultation also notes that C was more expensive to operate, due to extra trains overall, and longer turnround times at destination.

From the report:

Option C appeared to attract the level of support that it did because at the time it was the best performing option, in terms of reliability, and in part because it was the only one that provided an additional service, compared with the pre-Covid timetable, through the proposed re-routeing of the North Wales to Manchester service via Northwich. This would provide an additional semi-fast service per hour along that route, which is a long-standing aspiration. However, it should be noted that the re-routeing was strongly opposed by existing users of the service from North WaIes, Chester and West Cheshire.

Option C had 22% of expressed support, narrowly ahead of do nothing with 17.9%, Original Option B was the lowest with 3.1% however the Keep Southport (7.6%) and Do nothing (because of Southport) (17.9%) were collectively the most favoured option and led to the B+.

 

[JonathanH]

Keeping Bolton-Castlefield at an even-ish 4tph will be important in spreading the passenger load, otherwise you'll just create bunching of passengers on the remaining services.

But there is 8tph Bolton to Salford Crescent (4 Airport, 1 Oxford Road, 3 Victoria) so at best it will be even-ish. Arguably, the Cumbria needs to be 'hidden' by being up behind something with more capacity.

 

[Starmill]

But there is 8tph Bolton to Salford Crescent (4 Airport, 1 Oxford Road, 3 Victoria) so at best it will be even-ish. Arguably, the Cumbria needs to be 'hidden' by being up behind something with more capacity.

Indeed. But of course the only way to achieve that is to put it shortly behind the six cars - but these will be all-stations between Bolton and Preston so that will likely extend journey times between Manchester and Cumbria towns.

The more likely outcome is that the three car trains leave Manchester Piccadilly five minutes ahead of the six car ones.

Unless someone has come up with a plan to find two more 195 diagrams and one more driver diagram to attach and detach them at Preston.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed. But of course the only way to achieve that is to put it shortly behind the six cars - but these will be all-stations between Bolton and Preston so that will likely extend journey times between Manchester and Cumbria towns.

The more likely outcome is that the three car trains leave Manchester Piccadilly five minutes ahead of the six car ones.

Yes, works well southbound but not northbound.

 

[Purple Orange]

Will the Blackpool-Airport services be 6-car do we think? Or will Hazel Grove-Piccadilly by 6-cars? I’m assuming it’ll be all stop along Styal.