Rail in the North Group report

[WatcherZero]

Mod Note: This thread has been split from here.

On that theme, the Rail In The North Group has published their first draft strategy for consultation focusing on a broad strategy for the three control periods after the next one with input from all the PTEs, LEP's, LTB's, Network Rail and consultants. This may be long but its highlight from my initial read through.

http://www.railstrategynorth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LTRS-Consultation-complete.pdf

They are looking in broad strokes at a fundamental reorganisation of rail in the North to make it more cost efficent and more attractive to passengers. Economies they are looking at include for instance is closing stations with fewer than 5,000 passengers per year where for example original industry or population has shifted away leaving a ghost station that costs more to maintain and in time penalty of stopping services than it generates in actual benefits to users.

Across the board target of speeding journey times by 20%, gross benefit of £25.5bn generating a annual GVA of £532m by 2025.

A minimum of 2tph for every station (research shows passengers attach a perceived 33 minute time penalty if the frequency is only hourly and 23 minutes if half hourly), Gross benefit of £5.4bn, GVA annually of £116m.

Reducing interchange times from 15 minutes to 10 minutes on average (passengers travelling 30 miles attach a 19 minute time penalty to an interchange), gross benefit £2.9bn, annual GVA £48m.

Accomadating future growth whilst maintaining existing crowding levels, £7bn benefit, annual GVA of £23m.

Improving Northern diesel rail fleet, gross benefit £750m, annual GVA £1m

Reducing delay minutes, £2bn benefits, annual GVA £42m

Improving station access, £6.7bn benefits, annual GVA of £149m.

Total benefits £49.6bn, annual GVA £910m.

Standarised smart ticketing across the North to remove the fare imbalances of travelling between a PTE to a non PTE area or where services are more highly subsidised, first step is that people through smart ticketing would automatically get a geographic ticket like a Rover if it was cheaper, second stage would be a integrated zonal system across the whole north, their basing their aspirations on ticketing in and around London. Would benefit those in rural areas over those in metro areas really.

The North’s Integrated Network – eight key principles
1. A harmonised and simplified fares system

2. The adoption of a categorised service specification, comprising:
1. high-speed and inter-city
2. inter—regional express (Transpennine express and others)
3. urban commuter
4. northern community lines
5. metros/LRT – related but outside the direct scope of this strategy except
as interfaces

3. Timetables designed to provide good connections between connecting rail services

4. Information provided in a user friendly manner throughout the journey, across the network
including on connecting modes using the latest, ever-evolving systems and databases

5. Stations designed and operated to facilitate transfers for all users between rail services
and onward connections by bus, tram, cycle, car and walking routes

6. Operational practices designed to facilitate through journeys including those involving
interchange and including between different operators

7. Investment in infrastructure and rolling stock designed to create a pleasant and safe
travelling and waiting environment that is accessible for all, to avoid overcrowding and to
facilitate the design of a connectional timetable

8. A progressive introduction of these principles achieved through franchise specifications
and input to on-going railway planning processes and through supporting activities of local planning authorities

They are considering copying the German system (Regional-Express (RE), Regional-bahn (RB), S-Bahn) where services are branded according to their type and speed so that unknowledgable passengers know what to expect in performance terms at a glance when using them.

They classifiy the existing service structure in the North as:
* High Speed/Inter-city (national intercity and HS2, tocs visiting the region such as Virgin, East Coast, ATW, EMT, Cross Country)
* Inter-Regional Express (the existing TPE network expanded to include Nottingham – Leeds and Scarborough – Bradford – Blackpool lines plus other routes as demand builds up)
* Urban commuter (commuter in metro areas currently provided by Northern)
* Northern community lines (rural, semi-rural and community partnership lines currently run by Northern)
* Light Rail/Metro (outside the scope of the document but in future Light Rail, Merseyrail and tram-train could be more integrated pan regionally S-Bahn style for ease of passenger use, theres also some heavy routes that could logically be branded S-bahn style like Aire and Wharfe Valleys and some York/Leeds services)

On electrification they hope to build on the existing programs and have all important regional (non rural) routes electrified by 2030, they dont provide a list but an indicative map of their desires is basically south TPE, Crewe-Holyhead, CLC Liverpool-Manchester, Wigan-Bolton, Barrow and Windermere, Preston-Leeds and down to Manchester, Harrogate, Cleethorpes, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Carlisle-Newcastle.

Bi-Modal trains may be required if the Government doesnt make available the resources for electrification.

Short Term -2019, manage rollout of existing infrastructure schemes and new rolling stock genertaing opportunities for new services and increased frequencies, some fundamental timetable recasting, fare integration, potentially through franchising Northern and TPE a major shift in staff roles, DOO operation with staff redeployed to more visible train and station customer roles such as customer service, retail in stations and onboard trains and security. Possibly more staff for currently non-staffed stations, unstaffed stations that may feel 'dangerous' at night was flagged up as a major disincentive to travel as were stations outside PTE areas that hadnt recieved the same investment in lighting, PIDs and CCTV.

Electrification work used as an opportunity to increase freight gauges.


Medium Term – 2019 to 2024

Will take time for new service patterns to settle, focus primarily on troubleshooting and fixing timetabling problems caused by recast and electrification for stability and performance.

Last remaining Pacers that havent been eliminated by 2019 should now be phased out, in addition work should begin on phasing out Sprinters which by 2024 will be 35 years old.

Efficencies of scale in electrification rollout should result in a rolling programme, gaps left by earlier work filled then work on expanding major route coverage. Work should begin on electrifying freight at major terminals, more passing loops and signalling improvements will allow longer freight trains.

Legacy equipment such as semaphore signals and block signalling should be phased out reducing costs and increasing capacity.


Longer Term – 2025-2034

Reorganisation and improvement to integrate HS2, in transport links to HS2 stations without heavy rail interchanges. Long term planning should be taking place on how to make the most of HS2. Junction enhancements and reliability improvements to increase interchange performance with HS2 and classic services. Major investment at Doncaster and Peterborough which wont benefit from HS2. further investments could include
* HS2 to Scotland
* New city centre routes to address capacity constraints
* New or expanded city centre stations to increase capacity
* Development of the Network in places existing of future demand justifys
* Freight gauge improvement at all terminals and ports (Public-Private funded)
* Relocating or building new stations to better serve their areas
* Addressing fundamental network legacy issues

Some investments may be hard to justify on financial benefits alone and require the support of wider development.

Community routes such as:
 Blackpool South – Preston – Colne
 Preston – Ormskirk
 Manchester - Wigan - Kirkby
 Manchester – Northwich – Chester
 Manchester – Hope Valley – Sheffield
 Barrow – Carlisle
 Barrow to Lancaster
 Lancaster/Morecambe - Leeds
 Manchester - Buxton
 Huddersfield – Sheffield
 Scarborough – Hull
 Tyne Valley Community Rail Partnership
 Barton - Cleethorpes
 Middlesbrough – Whitby
 Bishop Auckland – Darlington
 Manchester to Clitheroe
 Windermere – Oxenholme

While recognising not one size fits all and that trials could be done on individual lines they could be treated as a collective network for economy of scale for instance co-ordinated cascade to them of diesel stock displaced from elsewhere or group procurement of a new dedicated DMU fleet in future tailored to their needs and co-ordinated tourism marketing procurement ala Wales.


Back on ticketing theres an appendix on zonal ticketing with the suggestion it could be cell based rather than distance based ala Tyne and Wear and the Netherlands (entire country split up into equal sized cells approx 5km in diameter), added benefit is that it would make more sense on the ground with fares tailored to local journeys and network structure than Londons rings. It would be computationally easier for ticketing systems than distance based and staff wouldnt have to memorise multiple fares based on different origins or elligibility criteria.

 

[rebmcr]

Words

That all sounds extremely smart and well thought-out. Are you sure it's real? ;¬)

I especially like the idea of branding based on the type of service rather than the TOC. Some words that spring to mind: "Intercity"; "Alphaline"; "Regional".

 

[tbtc]

They are looking in broad strokes at a fundamental reorganisation of rail in the North to make it more cost efficent and more attractive to passengers. Economies they are looking at include for instance is closing stations with fewer than 5,000 passengers per year where for example original industry or population has shifted away leaving a ghost station that costs more to maintain and in time penalty of stopping services than it generates in actual benefits to users

Good.

"the north" is littered with these stations - but nobody has the guts to do anything about the historic stations lines.

Lets focus on the future (even if that means dumping some stations etc).

 

[Darren R]

Am I correct in thinking that this Rail in the North Group are basically all the various councils, PTEs, etc?

It's little more than a pie-in-the-sky wish list. I dont't wish to sound too negative: there are some good ideas that are practical, and then a great long list of things that are great ideas on paper but are just not possible or practicable.

Accross the board cuts in journey times by 20% - how?
Half-hourly frequencies on all lines - again: how? Where is the rolling stock coming from? Have they even thought whether the infrastructure is there to allow this?
Reducing interchange times from 15 minutes to 10 minutes on average - if it takes 15 minutes to walk from one side of a station to the other, how are they going to reduce that to 10? Force passengers to walk quicker? Lop off a few platforms at one end?
Electrify as many routes as they could think of - where's the money coming from? That's a Treasury decision, not Lancashire County Council!
Make trains DOO and eliminate guards - no, can't think that there would be any opposition to that from anyone! (Especially not guards!)
And how does HS2 come under Transport for the North's remit?

It reads like a typical council-generated planning document. The odd decent idea overwhlemed by a mixture of the impracticable and just downright idiotic. They haven't even come into existence yet and they're already planning how to spend billions of pounds they haven't got.

If councils in particular and public bodies in general have proved anything over the years, it's this: they are physically incapable of co-operating and working together in the way they'll need to with this.

 

[ainsworth74]

Good.

"the north" is littered with these stations - but nobody has the guts to do anything about the historic stations lines.

Lets focus on the future (even if that means dumping some stations etc).

Agreed, though only if we mothball the stations by simply removing the service. I'd not be in favour of actually demolishing them or selling off the platforms. Though South Bank is one of those stations and since the last timetable change where it now gets an hourly service throughout the day/week usage does appear to be going up with a couple of people joining and alighting every time I've been on a train that's stopped there. Seeing as it's only been around since May and the station has always had a terrible service that's not bad growth. So I'm not sure a blanket attack would really be a good idea!

 

[WatcherZero]

Am I correct in thinking that this Rail in the North Group are basically all the various councils, PTEs, etc?

It's little more than a pie-in-the-sky wish list. I dont't wish to sound too negative: there are some good ideas that are practical, and then a great long list of things that are great ideas on paper but are just not possible or practicable.

It reads like a typical council-generated planning document. The odd decent idea overwhlemed by a mixture of the impracticable and just downright idiotic. They haven't even come into existence yet and they're already planning how to spend billions of pounds they haven't got.

If councils in particular and public bodies in general have proved anything
over the years, it's this: they are physically incapable of co-operating and working together in the way they'll need to with this.

Its a high level policy document rather than an engineering plan, its how they (with professional advice) envision reforming the network to reduce the subsidy required whilst improving services. There are no specified schemes just the continuation of a rolling electrification project and the realisation that most benefit would come from unsexy things like modernising signalling, tackling bottlenecks, recasting the timetable to better join up services, junction improvements and cutting the fat.

Im actually impressed by just how realistic they are being!

* They dont forsee rural lines being electrified, they admit that more diesels may need to be ordered in time.
* They admit a small number of Pacers may still be in service a couple of years past 2019 and that by 2024 they would only just be planning the removal of Sprinters then 35 years old.
* They calculate that modernising Northerns diesel fleet would only produce limited benefits of £1m per year, replacement stock would be more expensive to lease.
* They are ready to see stations being closed and services becoming DOO, they are looking at how to lower operating costs not planning vast new mega schemes like Crossrail or huge new fleets, they merely target enough new stock for crowding to remain the same as today not reducing, this is despite TPE having by far the most passengers per carriage in the country outside London Overground (which is a different design of service) and Northerns crowding level being on par with Londons.
* Theres no grand schemes, no significant new investment until the 2030's.
* They realise even 5 years after the timetable recast theres still going to be issues and things that need tweaking and problems resolving.
* HS2 integration with existing services is the remit of local authorities, the Governments delegated the responsibility of planning how HS2 interchanges would be served by classic rail/metro and bus services and working out what extra infrastructure needs to be built to integrate it to them.
* A lot of journey time improvements will come from electrification, better signalling and small interventions to raise linespeed. Not every service could be made 20% faster and for a lot it will be through recasting the timetable to create expresses and more limited stop services, expanding the TPE network of interurbans. The reality is many services in the North are quite slow and theres lots of room for improvement where speed is constrained by capacity or scheduling conflicts.
* Likewise 2tph aspiration for all stations, the vast majority of stations already have 2tph or better.

 

[cle]

Won't journey time improvements also come from closing unused stations?

 

[edwin_m]

I've worked with several of the people who are leading the northern devolution proposals and I can confirm they know their stuff!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do the plans have any implications for the 4-star Macdonald Manchester Hotel and Spa on London Road ?

I have just taken a telephone call from the manager of this hotel who feels that their car park could well be affected by some of the options, but he is aware that this is early days for the project at the present time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Won't journey time improvements also come from closing unused stations?

Unused..or under-utilised.. railway stations ? I am glad that Prestbury station is not affected by this project..:roll:

How many railway stations were scheduled for closure by the Crossrail project in order to effect time improvements ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Its a high level policy document rather than an engineering plan, its how they (with professional advice) envision reforming the network to reduce the subsidy required whilst improving services.

It's a very good document, asking and attempting to answer some of the very difficult questions about what a northern network is for.
However, will it wash with the DfT and the political imperative of the day when decisions have to be made about devolution?

Another key area is that of revenue, costs and subsidy.
No public document is going to tell us the true state of the Northern and TPE books, and I would expect only DfT and the various TOC managements know that.
Until the operation is devolved I wouldn't expect any PTE people will know the full detail.
A visionary document is only worth anything if it can be implemented, and there are many obstacles on the road to overcome first.

The next utterance on the subject from DfT will be vital to understanding if/how devolution can happen.
The experience of Merseytravel and Merseyrail (keen to take infrastructure control before suddenly reversing their view) is not very reassuring.
It seems all the PTEs are on board for this report, though I didn't see any of the outlying authorities being involved (eg Cheshire/Warrington).
It would destroy the whole setup if any one PTE backed out or there was no buy-in from the shire counties.
The operational area looks OK but the north Derbyshire salient looks a bit odd.
Someone has also got ATW operating from Crewe to Manchester via Macclesfield - which happened occasionally during WCRM but not normally.
In the ORR comparison tables of traffic flows between major centres, Warrington, Middlesbrough and Grimsby are included, but Chester is missing.

Another implementation problem is Network Rail and its Route structure.
Both LNW and LNE Routes are deeply involved - a pity there is not a single NR interface.
And will Rail North get any control over NR's funding and priorities? Not in CP5 anyway.
But a good basis for discussion.

 

[tbtc]

How many railway stations were scheduled for closure by the Crossrail project in order to effect time improvements ?

There are a number of local stations on two track lines in northern England where a Pacer/Sprinter stopping eats into the timetable which delays a longer distance service behind. You've got to decellerate, open the doors, dwell at the station for a minute or two, accelerate again... that may waste five minutes for the service behind.

For example, the Pacer/Sprinter service from Leeds to Huddersfield stops everywhere then the Pacer/Sprinter service from Huddersfield to Stalybridge (and on to Manchester Victoria) stops everywhere - meaning that a 100mph 185 behind it has virtually no scope to overtake (beyond a loop at Dewsbury and a different platform at Huddersfield).

So a couple of hundred people on the Newcastle - Manchester Airport service are delayed by a few minutes for the sake of serving a station with one or two passengers.

If we are serious about encouraging additional passengers then we'd have to consider whether a hundred people on a "fast" service are more important than one passenger at a station served by a "slow" service.

But because we are scared of upsetting anyone, there aren't a lot of local stations that have lost their slow trains for the sake of more/better fast ones on that line. About the only example I can think of are the stations between Meadowhall and Wakefield Kirkgate:

• Chapletown went down from three trains an hour to two trains an hour
• Elsecar went down from three trains an hour to one train an hour
• Wombwell went down from three trains an hour to two trains an hour
• Darton went down from two trains an hour to one train an hour

...this was to provide two "semi fast" trains from Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley.

There are other lines where a Sprinter/Pacer stopping for the sake of one or two passengers delays a Voyager/ 185/ 158 etc behind.

Crossrail isn't about speeding up journeys - its about capacity. But the existing services due to be replaced by Crossrail are generally segregated to their own (slow) lines at the Liverpool Street side and the Paddington side, so a stop at somewhere like Maryland for one or two passengers isn't impacting the Norwich express.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There are a number of local stations on two track lines in northern England where a Pacer/Sprinter stopping eats into the timetable which delays a longer distance service behind. You've got to decellerate, open the doors, dwell at the station for a minute or two, accelerate again... that may waste five minutes for the service behind.

For example, the Pacer/Sprinter service from Leeds to Huddersfield stops everywhere then the Pacer/Sprinter service from Huddersfield to Stalybridge (and on to Manchester Victoria) stops everywhere - meaning that a 100mph 185 behind it has virtually no scope to overtake (beyond a loop at Dewsbury and a different platform at Huddersfield).

So a couple of hundred people on the Newcastle - Manchester Airport service are delayed by a few minutes for the sake of serving a station with one or two passengers.

If we are serious about encouraging additional passengers then we'd have to consider whether a hundred people on a "fast" service are more important than one passenger at a station served by a "slow" service.

But because we are scared of upsetting anyone, there aren't a lot of local stations that have lost their slow trains for the sake of more/better fast ones on that line. About the only example I can think of are the stations between Meadowhall and Wakefield Kirkgate:

• Chapletown went down from three trains an hour to two trains an hour
• Elsecar went down from three trains an hour to one train an hour
• Wombwell went down from three trains an hour to two trains an hour
• Darton went down from two trains an hour to one train an hour

...this was to provide two "semi fast" trains from Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley.

There are other lines where a Sprinter/Pacer stopping for the sake of one or two passengers delays a Voyager/ 185/ 158 etc behind.

Crossrail isn't about speeding up journeys - its about capacity. But the existing services due to be replaced by Crossrail are generally segregated to their own (slow) lines at the Liverpool Street side and the Paddington side, so a stop at somewhere like Maryland for one or two passengers isn't impacting the Norwich express.

Good point about the Leeds-Sheffield semi fasts. My only bugbear with that work was the reduction to 1tph for Elsecar, but it just needs a little linespeed improvement to allow for that. It should have been reduced to 2tph across the board (not Darton though that can stay at 1tph).

Leeds-Huddersfield is a good point, but some of the stations along that route are very busy, Dewsbury and Morley to name two. Luckily the discussions around this line are moot because electrification is going to allow a 400% increase in local station capacity (2 car pacer to 2x4 car EMU per hour) and an increase of 200% on TPE (4x3car 185 to 6x4car EMU (some maybe 8 car formation))

Something to take from that is, if you want a mixed traffic railway, you need to electrify and improve the performance of the slower stock! (or 4 track but thats a very different conversation)

 

[WatcherZero]

It's a very good document, asking and attempting to answer some of the very difficult questions about what a northern network is for.
However, will it wash with the DfT and the political imperative of the day when decisions have to be made about devolution?

Another key area is that of revenue, costs and subsidy.
No public document is going to tell us the true state of the Northern and TPE books, and I would expect only DfT and the various TOC managements know that.
Until the operation is devolved I wouldn't expect any PTE people will know the full detail.
A visionary document is only worth anything if it can be implemented, and there are many obstacles on the road to overcome first.

The next utterance on the subject from DfT will be vital to understanding if/how devolution can happen.
The experience of Merseytravel and Merseyrail (keen to take infrastructure control before suddenly reversing their view) is not very reassuring.
It seems all the PTEs are on board for this report, though I didn't see any of the outlying authorities being involved (eg Cheshire/Warrington).
It would destroy the whole setup if any one PTE backed out or there was no buy-in from the shire counties.
The operational area looks OK but the north Derbyshire salient looks a bit odd.
Someone has also got ATW operating from Crewe to Manchester via Macclesfield - which happened occasionally during WCRM but not normally.
In the ORR comparison tables of traffic flows between major centres, Warrington, Middlesbrough and Grimsby are included, but Chester is missing.

I take your points but that salient is the Derwent Valley line from Matlock to Derby which is likely the point of the salient as its a midlands line and doesnt interface with the north. The non-pte areas have three representatives I think it was, bit impractical to get 40 odd of them round a table every day.


http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/static/documents/content/Network_Rail_national_map.pdf

Chester is in the list of towns and citys with a population over 75,000 used for modelling the urban matrix.

Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Durham, Darlington, Carlisle, Workington/Whitehaven, Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster, Blackpool, Preston, Blackburn, Burnley, Liverpool, Wigan, Bolton, Manchester, Stockport, Warrington, Chester, Crewe, Stoke on Trent, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Chesterfield, Wakefield, Grimsby/Cleethorpes, Hull, York, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford and Harrogate.

Chester-Leeds and Chester-Manchester services are mentioned frequently also mentioned is Warrington-York as targets for improvement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Pacer/Sprinter service from Leeds to Huddersfield stops everywhere then the Pacer/Sprinter service from Huddersfield to Stalybridge (and on to Manchester Victoria) stops everywhere - meaning that a 100mph 185 behind it has virtually no scope to overtake (beyond a loop at Dewsbury and a different platform at Huddersfield).

Are there not now definite plans to rationalise the station stopping on the Huddersfield to Manchester services at Mossley and Greenfield railway stations on the west side of the Pennines together with similar plans for the same at Marsden and Slaithwaite railway stations on the east side of the Pennines, on something akin to a "perm any 2 from 4" basis ?

 

[yorksrob]

A very interesting document and I look forward to reading through it (thanks for the rundown).

Firstly, I agree with YorkshireBear wholeheartedly. Smaller intermediate stations on the trans-pennine routes do generate a decent number of passengers and play an important role in local communities and economies. I‘m highly scepticle about the benefits of inconveniencing large numbers of people in many communities just to increase express speeds by a few minutes. The fact that faster services already require so many paths already on such routes surely suggests that even with current timings such services are already popular and it would be a far better use of resources (not to mention line capacity to ensure that the express trains we have are longer (as was oftern the case in the past ) thus providing more capacity.

Secondly, I see nothing in the run down about improving the abysmal state of evening services on many local routes. Most of the improvements mentioned are secondary in allowing the railway to play a full part in the cultural and economic life of the North compared to having passenger services that are there when people need them and allow them to take part in that cultural and economic life. This should be a key aim and I am minded to contact the authors to tell them so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there not now definite plans to rationalise the station stopping on the Huddersfield to Manchester services at Mossley and Greenfield railway stations on the west side of the Pennines together with similar plans for the same at Marsden and Slaithwaite railway stations on the east side of the Pennines, on something akin to a "perm any 2 from 4" basis ?

Isn't the Vic-Hudds stopper already only hourly ? Was on a Saturday the last time I used it, which suggests there isn‘t much scope for reducing services there without causing much inconvenience.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Good.

"the north" is littered with these stations - but nobody has the guts to do anything about the historic stations lines.

Lets focus on the future (even if that means dumping some stations etc).

Agreed, though only if we mothball the stations by simply removing the service. I'd not be in favour of actually demolishing them or selling off the platforms. Though South Bank is one of those stations and since the last timetable change where it now gets an hourly service throughout the day/week usage does appear to be going up with a couple of people joining and alighting every time I've been on a train that's stopped there. Seeing as it's only been around since May and the station has always had a terrible service that's not bad growth. So I'm not sure a blanket attack would really be a good idea!

The problem with most of the Tees Valley line between Middlesbrough and Redcar is that it's no longer relevant to the population it serves.(passenger traffic not freight)

South Bank, Cargo Fleet(closed) & Grangetown (closed) stations are all no longer near the populations they used to serve. Most of the newer housing in the area has been built so far south of the line it could do with a new more relevant line being built between Middlesbrough and Redcar.

Thornaby station was dying on its feet back in the early 80's, it was only the re-development of Teesdale site and the introduction of TPE services between Middlesbrough and York that rejuvenated the station.

I sometimes find it ironic that lines that were closed in the past, would have stations that would be more used now, than what was left. Because of the way those places have grown, Stokesley, Guisborough, Brotton & Loftus would see more passenger use than South Bank ever will.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Are there not now definite plans to rationalise the station stopping on the Huddersfield to Manchester services at Mossley and Greenfield railway stations on the west side of the Pennines together with similar plans for the same at Marsden and Slaithwaite railway stations on the east side of the Pennines, on something akin to a "perm any 2 from 4" basis ?

This will last for two years from December 2016 to December 2018 and was done after extensive consultation. It is to allow 6 FTPE trains an hour (diesel). In December 2018 there will be room due to electrification to put back in this local service as an all stops but semi fast Stalybridge to Piccadilly (note change of terminal).

 

[WatcherZero]

Secondly, I see nothing in the run down about improving the abysmal state of evening services on many local routes. Most of the improvements mentioned are secondary in allowing the railway to play a full part in the cultural and economic life of the North compared to having passenger services that are there when people need them and allow them to take part in that cultural and economic life. This should be a key aim and I am minded to contact the authors to tell them so.

Consultation forms here:

http://www.railstrategynorth.com/about-the-partners/

Closing dates October. Consultation website itself does a poor job of summarising the document though the breaking up of chapters into seperate documents is useful when filling out the consultation questions.

 

[yorksrob]

Consultation forms here:

http://www.railstrategynorth.com/about-the-partners/

Closing dates October. Consultation website itself does a poor job of summarising the document though the breaking up of chapters into seperate documents is useful when filling out the consultation questions.

Cheers for that. I shall have a read and digest.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This will last for two years from December 2016 to December 2018 and was done after extensive consultation. It is to allow 6 FTPE trains an hour (diesel). In December 2018 there will be room due to electrification to put back in this local service as an all stops but semi fast Stalybridge to Piccadilly (note change of terminal).

Thank you for this clarification of the period involved. Noting the 2019 relocation of the Huddersfield local service, via Guide Bridge, to Manchester Piccadilly, what paths will be then available at that point in time on the Manchester Victoria-Ashton under Lyne-Stalybridge route and what is intended that these will be. Will any freight services also use this route ?

 

[edwin_m]

Victoria-Stalybridge will have all the TPE services plus (on current plans, and as I recall) two stoppers per hour terminating at Stalybridge. The skip-stopping plans for the intermediate stations to Huddersfield will still have at least one train calling at each station per hour, just not the same train. This sounds line bad news for the Ale Trail! However this is all previous plans and no doubt if Rail in the North takes off they will have different ideas - I also still have to find the time to read all this!

 

[Darren R]

I've worked with several of the people who are leading the northern devolution proposals and I can confirm they know their stuff!

I didn't mean to cast aspersions, but the people who will actually be taking the decisions will be politicians............go on - I dare you to say they know their stuff!

I'm all in favour of devolution to local levels, in theory, but the quality of the devolved decisions very much depends on the calibre of the locals making those decisions. Some things are just too important for that to be desirable - and I think the rail network is one of those things.

Sometimes of course it works very well: Merseyrail readily springs to mind. But it is a small, compact and largely stand-alone part of the network. I think the area covered by this particular piece of devolved decision-making is just too large for it to work in practice. The strategic planning that is necessary is unlikely to work out - there will (in my opinion) be too many disparate bodies all fighting their own particular corner, each with their own concerns. Many of those will be genuine and legitimate, others far less so.

It will only work if everyone is involved and committed to the greater regional good - and lets face it, in such matters public bodies do not have a good track record. History is not on their side.

Reading the posts on this thread shows the potential problem the new set-up will face - posts from the NorthEast with their local concerns alongside those from Cheshire with theirs. I'm not dismissing the points they make, I merely point out the potential issue that's probably going to arise. Each council etc will reflect similar concerns and want answers to the problems within their own boundaries. Well that's fine with getting the bins emptied but the railway needs something more strategic than that - and of course any CapEx and investment plans require a much longer timescale than councils mostly work to.

Mention has been made to the various PTEs (or whatever they're called these days) but of course large swaths of the area are not in PTEs. I'm just concerned that the PTEs will have more clout and inevitably this will come at the expense of more rural areas.

There have been posts along the lines of 'well there's more people on the fast train who are being delayed at the expense of the few people on the stopper, so axe the stopper.' Well those few people on the stopper will point out they only have one service per hour and it serves a more rural area - an area that may be far more reliant on public transport than those in the urban areas. If we accept the concept of a social railway, then surely extra funding should be allocated to these areas ahead of the conurbations. But the PTEs will argue it should be the greatest good to the greatest number of people (and sod the rest.) My main concerns are that there will be less strategic thinking and those who live in the 'shires' will lose out.

But that's not to say the current set-up is ideal!

 

[WatcherZero]

Thing is people fighting for their own local benefit is the way politics works whatever level your at, councils, county councils, MP's heck even in corporations you will have departments fighting each other and directors on the board fighting each other for resources. Ultimately everyone somewhere compromises.

'Man is a political animal'
Aristotle

 

[YorkshireBear]

There have been posts along the lines of 'well there's more people on the fast train who are being delayed at the expense of the few people on the stopper, so axe the stopper.' Well those few people on the stopper will point out they only have one service per hour and it serves a more rural area - an area that may be far more reliant on public transport than those in the urban areas. If we accept the concept of a social railway, then surely extra funding should be allocated to these areas ahead of the conurbations. But the PTEs will argue it should be the greatest good to the greatest number of people (and sod the rest.) My main concerns are that there will be less strategic thinking and those who live in the 'shires' will lose out.

There is always a balance. Thats what i think is best. So say the local service is 3tph and getting in the way of expresses. See if you can reduce it to 2tph.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Good point about the Leeds-Sheffield semi fasts. My only bugbear with that work was the reduction to 1tph for Elsecar, but it just needs a little linespeed improvement to allow for that. It should have been reduced to 2tph across the board (not Darton though that can stay at 1tph).

Leeds-Huddersfield is a good point, but some of the stations along that route are very busy, Dewsbury and Morley to name two. Luckily the discussions around this line are moot because electrification is going to allow a 400% increase in local station capacity (2 car pacer to 2x4 car EMU per hour) and an increase of 200% on TPE (4x3car 185 to 6x4car EMU (some maybe 8 car formation))

Something to take from that is, if you want a mixed traffic railway, you need to electrify and improve the performance of the slower stock! (or 4 track but thats a very different conversation)

Elsecar is my local station and a long-awaited park and ride facility is currently being constructed adjoining the station, so I would hope Northern and the two PTEs are looking at reintroducing the Elsecar stop on the SHF-HUD trains, otherwise what's the point in having a park and ride if three quarters of the trains passing throuigh the station don't stop?

Quite why Northern have a timetable that permits some SHF-HUD trains to call at Elsecar at peak times but can't get the off-peak trains to stop there (when capacity should be greater) is a mystery to me.

 

[yorksrob]

Elsecar is my local station and a long-awaited park and ride facility is currently being constructed adjoining the station, so I would hope Northern and the two PTEs are looking at reintroducing the Elsecar stop on the SHF-HUD trains, otherwise what's the point in having a park and ride if three quarters of the trains passing throuigh the station don't stop?

Quite why Northern have a timetable that permits some SHF-HUD trains to call at Elsecar at peak times but can't get the off-peak trains to stop there (when capacity should be greater) is a mystery to me.

There are issues such as this all along the Hallam line.

I'm not at all convinced that having two expresses an hour between Leeds and Sheffield with one stopper serving all intermediate points (some of which are quite sizeable) represents the best use of the route or the rolling stock.

My preference would be to recast the one that doesn't continue to Nottingham as a semi-fast, adding in a couple of the larger intermediate stops.

 

[tbtc]

There are issues such as this all along the Hallam line.

I'm not at all convinced that having two expresses an hour between Leeds and Sheffield with one stopper serving all intermediate points (some of which are quite sizeable) represents the best use of the route or the rolling stock.

My preference would be to recast the one that doesn't continue to Nottingham as a semi-fast, adding in a couple of the larger intermediate stops.

...basically having more trains stopping at Normanton (even if this means losing the longer distance links and faster services for the majority of passengers)?

The half hourly semi-fast on the Barnsley line is partly intended to limit the squeeze on the XC service from Sheffield to Leeds - slowing it down wouldn't help things.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thank you for this clarification of the period involved. Noting the 2019 relocation of the Huddersfield local service, via Guide Bridge, to Manchester Piccadilly, what paths will be then available at that point in time on the Manchester Victoria-Ashton under Lyne-Stalybridge route and what is intended that these will be. Will any freight services also use this route ?

Stalybridge stoppers from NW electrification will provide that service Paul. So Ashton loses its services to West Yorkshire that's all.

Paths between Stalybridge and Huddersfield post electrification will be for 6 TPE, 1 Local and 1 freight per hour. Network Rail are re-examining the Standedge Tunnel loop proposal (dropped as part of Northern Hub due to electrification bringing required performance benefits) and this would easily raise it to 6 TPE, 2 Local and 2 freight.

Capacity over other sections of TPE vary, for instance you can fit slightly more locals in North of Huddersfield easier because no freight is going to be allowed (under normal circumstances) to go through Morley. It will all be sent via Healey Mills and Wakefield Kirkgate.

 

[yorksrob]

...basically having more trains stopping at Normanton (even if this means losing the longer distance links and faster services for the majority of passengers)?

The half hourly semi-fast on the Barnsley line is partly intended to limit the squeeze on the XC service from Sheffield to Leeds - slowing it down wouldn't help things.

Normanton - and there is probably a further stop South of Barnsley that is equally deserving.

As for slowing down the fast service, they do so in the peak without problems, so I don't see why longer distance links would have to be sacrificed.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see that an extra couple of stops on one of the services (or maybe a skip-stop with both fasts picking up an alternate additional stop) is suddenly going to cause a mass exodus of passengers onto the crowded XC.

One of the other aims of the service is to improve connections to Barnsley, yet surely that includes better connections from the larger intermediate settlements into Barnsley, rather than just as a way for Barnsleyans to escape to the bright lights of Leeds and Sheffield. Wouldn't that be a better economic aspiration for a town such as Barnsley ?

The current pattern seems like a poor use of resources to me.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Elsecar is my local station and a long-awaited park and ride facility is currently being constructed adjoining the station, so I would hope Northern and the two PTEs are looking at reintroducing the Elsecar stop on the SHF-HUD trains, otherwise what's the point in having a park and ride if three quarters of the trains passing throuigh the station don't stop?

Quite why Northern have a timetable that permits some SHF-HUD trains to call at Elsecar at peak times but can't get the off-peak trains to stop there (when capacity should be greater) is a mystery to me.

There are issues such as this all along the Hallam line.

I'm not at all convinced that having two expresses an hour between Leeds and Sheffield with one stopper serving all intermediate points (some of which are quite sizeable) represents the best use of the route or the rolling stock.

My preference would be to recast the one that doesn't continue to Nottingham as a semi-fast, adding in a couple of the larger intermediate stops.

...basically having more trains stopping at Normanton (even if this means losing the longer distance links and faster services for the majority of passengers)?

The half hourly semi-fast on the Barnsley line is partly intended to limit the squeeze on the XC service from Sheffield to Leeds - slowing it down wouldn't help things.

It has been an aspiration for a long time. Some of the Semi-Fasts stop at Normanton in the evenings giving a bit more slack past Barnsley. And also the semi fasts regularly run 2-5 minutes late in the peaks as the timetable is unreliable. Yes that car park should be good, I have done some of the drainage for it so I hope it doesn't flood! Returning Elsecar to 2tph is in all the RUS and will be done when the line is partially upgraded before end of CP5.

I think maybe adding Normanton into just the Semi-fast to Sheffield would not hinder performance significantly and would not loose customers. But that is the only stop I would add as it is fairly busy station for 1tph. The rest of the line can wait for resignalling-line speed upgrades-electrification. The best cheap upgrade to the line i could think of is Car-Parks, there are not enough and not big enough. So i agree with Yorksrob and tbtc... :P
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The current pattern seems like a poor use of resources to me.

Its not perfect but i wouldn't describe it as poor. Except for Normanton and Elsecar.. :P