Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Bletchleyite]

I think the concept can work - but only if you build all of it. And the choice of which bit to build first was way off - it should have been 15/16.

 

[keith1879]

As I said there's also a "magic point" in frequency. I reckon going to half hourly would provide a publicity and passenger boost that going from half hourly to quarter hourly probably wouldn't.

Is there a magic point? Do you know what it is? Can it be proved? (Personally I don't disagree .....otherwise we could get to a reductio ad absurdam of a one person train every 15 seconds - or conversely a single 200 coach train every day). If there is a magic point I don't see it as being every half hour on the Manchester to Leeds route - the ability of a crowd to gather in 10 minutes on Leeds station proves that to me. I am a regular member of that crowd and have been on and off since the 1990s.
There's also the fact that we already have a fast train every 15 minutes. "Going to half hourly" would indeed provide a publicity boost.

 

[keith1879]

Has it? Or has a combination of increased quality, increased road congestion and a general anti-car trend done that?

To be honest - I don't know. But taking the cross-country services as an example - what would you do now to alleviate the crowding....double the length of the train at the same frequency ......or at half the frequency? If the latter then I cannot see any possible expectation that overall usage would not fall. If the aim is to increase rail usage then I would say that step 1 is to increase speed; step 2 is increase frequency; step 3 is to increase train length to soak up the excess usage so far generated. And repeat.

There is no doubt that several factors have conspired to increase rail usage all acting together - but to argue that one of them (increased frequency) is irrelevant or unimportant based on personal belief strikes me as unscientific. The basis of the cross country franchise (was it "Operation Princess" ...can't remember now) was that to offer more frequent trains over a range of regular journeys would increase ridership. Ridership increased. That might be a coincidence but when you predict something is going to happen and it happens you tend to think it's something more. There are other examples including West Coast and as somebody else said Edinburgh - Glasgow.

 

[B&I]

To be honest - I don't know. But taking the cross-country services as an example - what would you do now to alleviate the crowding....double the length of the train at the same frequency ......or at half the frequency? If the latter then I cannot see any possible expectation that overall usage would not fall. If the aim is to increase rail usage then I would say that step 1 is to increase speed; step 2 is increase frequency; step 3 is to increase train length to soak up the excess usage so far generated. And repeat.

There is no doubt that several factors have conspired to increase rail usage all acting together - but to argue that one of them (increased frequency) is irrelevant or unimportant based on personal belief strikes me as unscientific. The basis of the cross country franchise (was it "Operation Princess" ...can't remember now) was that to offer more frequent trains over a range of regular journeys would increase ridership. Ridership increased. That might be a coincidence but when you predict something is going to happen and it happens you tend to think it's something more. There are other examples including West Coast and as somebody else said Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Op Princess may not be the best example to pick to support your argument, as it led to catastrophic overcrowding and reliability problems (from which, arguably, XC has never fully recovered), and the contraction.of the XC network to the ongoing detriment of numerous large processes.

The better way to increase passenger figures is probably this:
1. Increase seat numbers per train. I would argue that comfortable conditions are much more likely to attract.travellers than more frequent services
2. Increase line capacity,.in order to
3. Increase service frequency, and
4. Increase speed. (I place this last with some hesitation because there remain numerous places in the country where radical increases in speed, and hence the attractiveness of service, are possible, but on a lot of other lines only incremental improvwments are really possible on current alignments).

The problem in this country is the Treasury / DfT's extreme reluctace to fund step 2 above, leading to.
impossible demands being placed on unchanged infrastructure, meltdowns in reliability, and a slump in passenger confidence / numbers, as seen in and around Manchester this summer. The cynic in me wonders whether this is deliberate, and these continual.debacles are engineered to sabotage growth in rail custom, and undermine arguments for future infrastructure spending

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest - I don't know. But taking the cross-country services as an example - what would you do now to alleviate the crowding....double the length of the train at the same frequency ......or at half the frequency? If the latter then I cannot see any possible expectation that overall usage would not fall. If the aim is to increase rail usage then I would say that step 1 is to increase speed; step 2 is increase frequency; step 3 is to increase train length to soak up the excess usage so far generated.

As I said I think there's a sweet spot which for medium to long distance is about half hourly (for local services it's more frequent, probably every 10 or 15 minutes). Assuming there was enough capacity, I don't for instance think reducing the VT Manchester or Brum to London services from every 20 minutes to half hourly would have any significant impact on passenger numbers. But dropping to hourly probably would.

There are however odd cases where a reduction can cause a boost in traffic (though they don't apply here). I do strongly believe that the St Albans Abbey branch would be better off running hourly "im Takt" than the present odd 45 minute frequency, as if you make it memorable you make it much more usable. What of course would be really useful would be to do the works to make it half hourly and run through to Euston (replacing calls at Bushey and Harrow on LNR services from further north) - but I reckon any more frequent than that would head into diminishing returns, given that a half hourly base is what seems to fit most smaller South East commuter stations quite well.

 

[yorkie]

Tpe getting stuck behind stoppers?

The only stoppers they get stuck behind is other TPE's.

Not true.

This idea of blaming one TOC over the other is also pointless. Recently I have been on both Northern trains delayed by TPE trains, TPE trains delayed by Northern trains, and each TOC delaying themselves.

 

[Altfish]

If you increase the frequency (I would say 15 minutes or less)people don't bother to check the timetable; it becomes like the tube, Manchester Trams or Leeds to Manchester by TPE. I use the latter on average once a week and I never bother with train times; I catch the first Manchester bound TPE train. As has been stated, it never ceases to amaze me the speed at which Platform 16 fills up, especially for the Airport trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, at about 10min interval (15min at a push) a local service becomes "turn up and go". For a long distance service I'd suggest something similar happens when the maximum waiting time is about a third of the journey time. Particularly relevant to Manchester, this only applies if all the trains depart from the same station, otherwise the potential passenger has a complicated decision about which station to head for.

 

[notlob.divad]

If you increase the frequency (I would say 15 minutes or less)people don't bother to check the timetable; it becomes like the tube, Manchester Trams or Leeds to Manchester by TPE. I use the latter on average once a week and I never bother with train times; I catch the first Manchester bound TPE train. As has been stated, it never ceases to amaze me the speed at which Platform 16 fills up, especially for the Airport trains.

And that attitude is fine for intra-urban areas. Metros, buses, trams, even S-bahn style commuter services. But when you get to Inter-urban areas, Bletchleyite is absolutely right. The reason is, that by having the high frequency service with in each urban area you are easily able to connect to any of the lower frequency inter-urban services. You do not need the inter-urban services to have the same 10/15 minute high level of frequency, but you do need for them to be longer.

 

[Eccles1983]

Not true.

This idea of blaming one TOC over the other is also pointless. Recently I have been on both Northern trains delayed by TPE trains, TPE trains delayed by Northern trains, and each TOC delaying themselves.

I say it as I see it from the cab.

Manchester is awash with discarded or short routed trains, mostly of a certain colour.

 

[Altfish]

And that attitude is fine for intra-urban areas. Metros, buses, trams, even S-bahn style commuter services. But when you get to Inter-urban areas, Bletchleyite is absolutely right. The reason is, that by having the high frequency service with in each urban area you are easily able to connect to any of the lower frequency inter-urban services. You do not need the inter-urban services to have the same 10/15 minute high level of frequency, but you do need for them to be longer.

I disagree, even with Virgin Trains London to Manchester, I know there are 3 an hour, so don't worry about the timetable (although I do know the times) - just get to Euston and catch the next train. I remember when it was just one an hour and that wasn't my attitude.
The thing is on the TPE routes the Leeds - Manchester section is the core of the trans-Pennine routes. So one train will be for Liverpool, the next for The Airport and then Piccadilly; so reducing the trains eliminates end destinations and makes them less attractive.

 

[CdBrux]

I also think, in addition to the various destinations, that part of the idea is to make the railway more intra-urban in style, rightly or wrongly.
Although not designed as such I do wonder if the rolling stock would be better as splittable trains, joined through the Victoria to Leeds or York core

 

[cle]

I disagree, even with Virgin Trains London to Manchester, I know there are 3 an hour, so don't worry about the timetable (although I do know the times) - just get to Euston and catch the next train. I remember when it was just one an hour and that wasn't my attitude.
The thing is on the TPE routes the Leeds - Manchester section is the core of the trans-Pennine routes. So one train will be for Liverpool, the next for The Airport and then Piccadilly; so reducing the trains eliminates end destinations and makes them less attractive.

This is spot on. It is not the Manchester - Leeds railway alone. And both ends have very well used branches, so 4tph should be the absolute minimum to serve both Liverpool and Airport twice. On the eastern side, again there have been four historical termini, all of which rely on this service very much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is spot on. It is not the Manchester - Leeds railway alone. And both ends have very well used branches, so 4tph should be the absolute minimum to serve both Liverpool and Airport twice. On the eastern side, again there have been four historical termini, all of which rely on this service very much.

Portion working deals with that.

 

[Clip]

Portion working deals with that.

If so you could probably add on a portion to one of them to go up to Preston too

 

[Clip]

Or Blackpool

 

[urbophile]

To be honest - I don't know. But taking the cross-country services as an example - what would you do now to alleviate the crowding....double the length of the train at the same frequency ......or at half the frequency? If the latter then I cannot see any possible expectation that overall usage would not fall. If the aim is to increase rail usage then I would say that step 1 is to increase speed; step 2 is increase frequency; step 3 is to increase train length to soak up the excess usage so far generated. And repeat.

There is no doubt that several factors have conspired to increase rail usage all acting together - but to argue that one of them (increased frequency) is irrelevant or unimportant based on personal belief strikes me as unscientific. The basis of the cross country franchise (was it "Operation Princess" ...can't remember now) was that to offer more frequent trains over a range of regular journeys would increase ridership. Ridership increased. That might be a coincidence but when you predict something is going to happen and it happens you tend to think it's something more. There are other examples including West Coast and as somebody else said Edinburgh - Glasgow.

How significant is a frequent service on long distance lines when only business users on expense accounts can take advantage of the flexibility it allows? Any normal punter paying for themself would be on an advance ticket linked to a specific train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How significant is a frequent service on long distance lines when only business users on expense accounts can take advantage of the flexibility it allows? Any normal punter paying for themself would be on an advance ticket linked to a specific train.

I'm not sure that's true any more. Many employers mandate the use of Advances, whereas as an individual I can choose to pay more for a walk-up.

Indeed, I see the future of First Class as either a leisure product or for self-upgrading, myself.

 

[B&I]

I disagree, even with Virgin Trains London to Manchester, I know there are 3 an hour, so don't worry about the timetable (although I do know the times) - just get to Euston and catch the next train. I remember when it was just one an hour and that wasn't my attitude.
The thing is on the TPE routes the Leeds - Manchester section is the core of the trans-Pennine routes. So one train will be for Liverpool, the next for The Airport and then Piccadilly; so reducing the trains eliminates end destinations and makes them less attractive.

Are you really saying that, if the London to Manchester service was only every 30 minutes, thay would affect your choice of whether or not to use it ? God knows how us Liverpool residents, lumbered with an hourly service, cope

 

[Sceptre]

In my experience few. The biggest delays are caused by the TPE trains getting stuck behind stoppers.
There are fewer 'cross-overs' at Leeds causing conflict; London traffic has an elevated junction that flies over the Manchester traffic.

In my experience, most of the problems in Leeds happen to the Cas trains, which are very often delayed to allow the TPEs, which shares the F line through. I think an additional G line could fit if Network Rail were that way inclined.

(Personally, I'd also reopen Castleford–Garforth, but hey ho…)

 

[keith1879]

As I said I think there's a sweet spot which for medium to long distance is about half hourly (for local services it's more frequent, probably every 10 or 15 minutes). Assuming there was enough capacity, I don't for instance think reducing the VT Manchester or Brum to London services from every 20 minutes to half hourly would have any significant impact on passenger numbers. But dropping to hourly probably would.

There are however odd cases where a reduction can cause a boost in traffic (though they don't apply here). I do strongly believe that the St Albans Abbey branch would be better off running hourly "im Takt" than the present odd 45 minute frequency, as if you make it memorable you make it much more usable. What of course would be really useful would be to do the works to make it half hourly and run through to Euston (replacing calls at Bushey and Harrow on LNR services from further north) - but I reckon any more frequent than that would head into diminishing returns, given that a half hourly base is what seems to fit most smaller South East commuter stations quite well.

Now we're starting to agree. The sweet spot will vary from route to route ....I agree with both your examples of VT services. TransPennine though is so complicated ..you've got people from Newcastle, York, Hull, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool all with their expectations. Add in the ultimate complication of Huddersfield which is inevitably and historically a part of the TP service and the more recent complication of the airport (OK - I know you don't accept that as a valid destination but you must at least agree that lots of people do).

I could list out a dozen or more statements that I think we would both agree with ....the devil is in how you analyse their relative significance. In the end it boils down to a choice between simplicity/reliability at one end of the spectrum and complexity/problems at the other. We just tend to think that a different part of the spectrum is the right one. Currently I think we are too complex because of the lack of 15/16 (and also perhaps because of too many other services that are cluttering up Piccadilly but that's another story).

 

[keith1879]

In my experience, most of the problems in Leeds happen to the Cas trains, which are very often delayed to allow the TPEs, which shares the F line through. I think an additional G line could fit if Network Rail were that way inclined.

(Personally, I'd also reopen Castleford–Garforth, but hey ho…)

I was once diverted via that line in the late 60s. It was dark which meant I didn't really get to see the delightful scenery.

 

[keith1879]

Op Princess may not be the best example to pick to support your argument, as it led to catastrophic overcrowding and reliability problems (from which, arguably, XC has never fully recovered), and the contraction.of the XC network to the ongoing detriment of numerous large processes.

The better way to increase passenger figures is probably this:
1. Increase seat numbers per train. I would argue that comfortable conditions are much more likely to attract.travellers than more frequent services
2. Increase line capacity,.in order to
3. Increase service frequency, and
4. Increase speed. (I place this last with some hesitation because there remain numerous places in the country where radical increases in speed, and hence the attractiveness of service, are possible, but on a lot of other lines only incremental improvwments are really possible on current alignments).

The problem in this country is the Treasury / DfT's extreme reluctace to fund step 2 above, leading to.
impossible demands being placed on unchanged infrastructure, meltdowns in reliability, and a slump in passenger confidence / numbers, as seen in and around Manchester this summer. The cynic in me wonders whether this is deliberate, and these continual.debacles are engineered to sabotage growth in rail custom, and undermine arguments for future infrastructure spending

Did Operation Princess increase passenger numbers or not? Answer "Yes".

 

[AndrewE]

Did Operation Princess increase passenger numbers or not? Answer "Yes".

That's as maybe, and not disputed. Just like the replacement of loco-hauled trains on the Trans Pennine route before it, which should have warned the management, and then the supposedly further improved timetable since.
It's a good idea, but absolutely pointless (and reputation-damaging) if you don't provide the capacity to accommodate a step-change increase in useage.

 

[faltskog36abba]

I think the concept can work - but only if you build all of it. And the choice of which bit to build first was way off - it should have been 15/16.

Where would the trains which use Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13/14 terminate or run to if the 15/16 platforms started first?. When I went to the many events staged in Manchester - It was said Victoria station upgrade and track realignment would be done first to allow diversions from Piccadilly to Victoria during the building work.

 

[B&I]

Did Operation Princess increase passenger numbers or not? Answer "Yes".

Difficult to say, really. Other operators have generally managed to increase numbers without making an Operation Princess out of things, and often without any increases in frequency

 

[Altfish]

Are you really saying that, if the London to Manchester service was only every 30 minutes, thay would affect your choice of whether or not to use it ? God knows how us Liverpool residents, lumbered with an hourly service, cope

No. I'm not.

 

[a_c_skinner]

There looks to be (and we are talking crayons here) a cord in Ardwick that could be reinstated for a deal less than much of what we are discussing which would have allowed trains from the east into the eastern platforms of Piccadilly...

Be gentle, I did say it was crayoning

 

[Altfish]

There looks to be (and we are talking crayons here) a cord in Ardwick that could be reinstated for a deal less than much of what we are discussing which would have allowed trains from the east into the eastern platforms of Piccadilly...

Be gentle, I did say it was crayoning

That's not the problem, the current route from Guide Bridge already achieves that.
It is getting trains from the East to the West via Piccadilly Station

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where would the trains which use Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13/14 terminate or run to if the 15/16 platforms started first?. When I went to the many events staged in Manchester - It was said Victoria station upgrade and track realignment would be done first to allow diversions from Piccadilly to Victoria during the building work.

You could do most of the building without touching the existing two.