New Stateman article: North TPE trains are like distracted ponies

[northwichcat]

So are we concluding that the new Newcastle-Liverpool can miss out Huddersfield

Yes it should run Manchester to York non-stop. Why stop it at Leeds when Leeds already has 7tph to Manchester and 2 XC services per hour to Newcastle? Then if it misses out Leeds it's not serving the station that most Huddersfield passengers go to so can miss out Huddersfield as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This I know. However away from what you say and regarding general services, Padgate and Sankey are very much part of Warringtons suburban area and have a poor service. Buxton is not a suburb of Manchester, Slaithwaite is not a suburb of Huddersfield.

So in the case maybe we should be comparing Birchwood to Deighton, Padgate to Lockwood and Sankey & Penketh to Longwood & Milnsbridge?

Padgate and Lockwood get the same level of service - 1tph in each direction.
Birchwood has 3tph to Liverpool and 3tph to Manchester, Deighton has 1tph to Leeds (all stops), 1tph to Wakefield and 2tph to Huddersfield.
Sankey & Penketh still has a train service, Longwood & Milnsbridge does not.

 

[fowler9]

Putting my sensible head on Huddersfield will need a lot more TPE services than Warrington. If you want to travel north or south from Huddersfield you have to travel east or west first, roughly speaking. You obviously don't from Warrington. As for the local stations, I shouldn't be commenting on what services are required somewhere I'm not overly familiar with so apologies for that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sankey & Penketh still has a train service, Longwood & Milnsbridge does not.

Just goes to show how time has flown. It was 1968 when Longwood & Milnsbridge was closed and this is one of the many railway stations in Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire (full original county names) that I have used in my younger days, that are now closed.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Post deleted.

 

[Starmill]

No. It's not as simple as that.

You're either a large station like Leeds, York, Huddersfield, Bolton, Warrington, Durham or Darlington which all TPE trains which pass through stop at.

OR

A medium sized station like Dewsbury or Stalybridge which selected services call at.

OR

A small station which some peak time services stop at due to there not being enough paths for more local trains or insufficient space on local trains e.g. Irlam.

Quite. And Huddersfield belongs in the second category, not the first. Though it is higher up the list than the other two examples of this you provide.

How many services would routes like the Penistone Line need if every station got more services than the ones it is smaller than?

No... The station gets as many services as demand is in place for subject to the line's capacity, local factors and the TOCs business plan, which may or may not be influenced by just about anything.

So are we concluding that the new Newcastle-Liverpool can miss out Huddersfield

An eminently sensible idea, coupled with some infrastructure improvements this could be very beneficial.

Yes it should run Manchester to York non-stop. Why stop it at Leeds when Leeds already has 7tph to Manchester and 2 XC services per hour to Newcastle? Then if it misses out Leeds it's not serving the station that most Huddersfield passengers go to so can miss out Huddersfield as well.

Right then. Well I know now what I think of this debate.

Maybe I was assuming students who are there in term time only count as a fraction of a person. However, there is a serious point to that Huddersfield does have a university and the students there in term time only wouldn't usually be counted on the census at their term-time address but could use the train more than some people who are there all year round.

Because Manchester and Leeds have an utterly negligible number of students?

 

[Sidious]

Just out of interest, I've had a look in my old 1992 Summer timetable, and the fastest journey time from Leeds to Manchester was 57 minutes.

This was:

Leeds xx:09 - Huddersfield xx(a)28, xx(d)29 - Piccadilly xx:06.

The fastest timetabled journey now is 54 minutes, but every train has three stops, with every service calling at either Dewsbury or Stalybridge in addition to Huddersfield. 50 minutes should therefore be achievable if one or the other was omitted.

Another thought, it's likely that Class 91s/Mk IV will become redundant when IEP is implemented. By which time north trans-pennine will be electrified, and its probable that Leeds - Hull will too.

One possible deployment could be for 225's on Liverpool - (via Chat Moss) - Manchester - Leeds - Hull / York - Newcastle services (fast) with diesel traction (185's) on Liverpool - (via CLC) - Manchester - Stalybridge - Huddersfield - Dewsbury - Leeds - York - Scarborough / Middlesbrough.

This would create greater capacity between Liverpool and York because the trains would be longer, and also decrease journey times on the York - Newcastle section because 125 MPH traction is deployed. Longer trains could also keep the 4 tph TPE arrangement, giving more capacity for stopping trains between Leeds and Huddersfield?

 

[edwin_m]

There won't be any trains between Liverpool and Stalybridge or beyond via the CLC route, as these would have to cross the Piccadilly on the flat. And I can't imagine the 225 sets are much good at climbing hills.

However I think longer trains are a good idea - my money would be on 4-car gangwayed EMUs of 23m stock, working in twos where necessary which should just about fit in the platforms at Huddersfield.

 

[northwichcat]

Quite. And Huddersfield belongs in the second category, not the first. Though it is higher up the list than the other two examples of this you provide.



No... The station gets as many services as demand is in place for subject to the line's capacity, local factors and the TOCs business plan, which may or may not be influenced by just about anything.



An eminently sensible idea, coupled with some infrastructure improvements this could be very beneficial.



Right then. Well I know now what I think of this debate.

Right earlier on the thread 34D suggested not only that the new Liverpool-Newcastle service should omit Huddersfield but one of the existing services should also omit Huddersfield. The idea of cutting the number of Huddersfield-Leeds trains is a ridiculous idea when so many people travel between Huddersfield and Leeds.

Despite all North TPE services calling at Huddersfield it has significantly less train services than Leeds overall. Consequently, a number of journeys involve a change at Leeds - some of those journeys could be done with a change at Wakefield in lieu e.g. Huddersfield-London but no-one's interested in enhancing the Huddersfield-Wakefield frequency to ease crowding on North TPE, they (DfT, Network Rail and Metro) all want more Huddersfield-Leeds trains with more capacity.

If Huddersfield had 3tph to Wakefield and 3 (fast) tph to Leeds then Leeds would likely lose out as there will be less people making interchanges at Leeds so there would be less justification for enhancing other services to/from Leeds and there might even be service cuts e.g. XC deciding their previous idea of Leeds getting 2tph in each direction no longer being a good idea.

Because Manchester and Leeds have an utterly negligible number of students?

In the case of Leeds compared to the census population proportionally the answer is yes. However, I didn't say the Leeds student population shouldn't be considered. I was making the point as you compared Huddersfield to little Atherstone!

 

[Olaf]

The order of British cities in that listing is:

London, Dublin, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds, Belfast, Southampton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Sheffield and Nottingham.

Seems bizarre to me. I mean, how could they forget Huddersfield?

I was n't aware that Huddersfield is a city; but if it is n't, it's time it was.

 

[Eeveevolve]

I was n't aware that Huddersfield is a city; but if it is n't, it's time it was.

Attempts by the council to gain support for city status were rejected by the population in an unofficial referendum held by the Huddersfield Daily Examiner. The council did not apply for that status in either the 2000 or 2002 competitions.[9]

 

[northwichcat]

Attempts by the council to gain support for city status were rejected by the population in an unofficial referendum held by the Huddersfield Daily Examiner. The council did not apply for that status in either the 2000 or 2002 competitions.[9]

I understand that the Huddersfield Examiner made out that Huddersfield could not be made a city without council re-organisation as city status is awarded to a borough not a town meaning some people voted against it because they didn't want council re-organisation. However, given that in 2008 when Cheshire County Council was split up, a new district officially called 'Cheshire West & City of Chester' was formed (shortened to Cheshire West & Chester) I imagine Kirklees could have become 'Kirklees & City of Huddersfield'

 

[po8crg]

I understand that the Huddersfield Examiner made out that Huddersfield could not be made a city without council re-organisation as city status is awarded to a borough not a town meaning some people voted against it because they didn't want council re-organisation. However, given that in 2008 when Cheshire County Council was split up, a new district officially called 'Cheshire West & City of Chester' was formed (shortened to Cheshire West & Chester) I imagine Kirklees could have become 'Kirklees & City of Huddersfield'

My understanding is that city status in England is granted to a principal local authority, but that once granted it is not withdrawn (other than in the anomalous situation of Rochester), so a subsequent reorganisation results in the city status being transferred to charter trustees or to a parish council (such a parish council being styled as a city council). The status of City of Chester is held by the charter trustees of the City (ie the Chester West and Chester councillors representing wards within Chester) as are the cities of Bath (within Bath and North East Somerset) and Durham (within County Durham). Salisbury is an example of a city council that has the powers of a parish rather than a principal local authority.

Huddersfield does not have charter trustees to take on the city status (ie to elect a mayor of the city) - the mayoralty of Huddersfield was merged with those of Dewsbury, Batley and Spenborough in the formation of the Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees in 1974. The alternative would be a City of Kirklees, but I can't imagine that generating much enthusiasm.

An application could certainly be made for a new charter trust for the area covered by the two Area Committees for Huddersfield, or the former County Borough area (which are similar areas but not quite the same). It's never been done before, but it's not completely outlandish. Kirklees Borough would continue to have a Mayor as well, with both being ceremonial mayors (rather odd, but there are other places where this applies).

It might be smarter to ask for the restoration of the four boroughs and four mayors to charter trusts first, and the apply for city status for Huddersfield later on. I'm not aware of a borough charter being restored on this basis, but it seems like the sort of thing that the Lord Chancellor's Department would do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anyone with any personal thoughts on how matters have actually fared in the first week of the new timetable period in the area in question ?

 

[northwichcat]

Anyone with any personal thoughts on how matters have actually fared in the first week of the new timetable period in the area in question ?

Some people have posted their experiences and opinion in this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100799