Theoretically useful extensions to regional train services

[Bletchleyite]

I'd vote for anyone who made services in north west England more reliable by splitting the routes around Piccadilly so that all Airport services were all Castlefield services and vice versa - i.e. make the Airport - Castlefield operationally independent of the "main shed" services (other than freight, which we can't really do much with) - that would be huge improvement (Sheffield would lose its through trains to Liverpool/ Manchester Airport but that's a price I'm happy to pay for more reliable services)

That already is the case, isn't it, apart from the Liverpool-Norwich. Admittedly this train has a punctuality problem, but that isn't insurmountable.

 

[Dspatula]

That already is the case, isn't it, apart from the Liverpool-Norwich. Admittedly this train has a punctuality problem, but that isn't insurmountable.

Nope; Southport to Alderley Edge, Blackpool to Hazel Grove and Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport all use parts of the route. I'm fairly certain that Bolton to Stockport was built into the franchise so it'd be politically difficult to remove the connection. The fright takes the Style route anyway so actually already fits in that respect.

 

[YorksLad12]

Sometimes its easy to serve an since it lies on a busy line (e.g. Luton, Gatwick, Birmingham, Southampton), but the complications of Manchester mean it's on a branch that makes it more complicated to serve (effectively meaning one extra unit required to provide an hourly extension).

It's not even a branch, just one station call on a stub. If you could carry on through and connect with the other line at Ashley it wouldn't be so bad, but someone built an airport in the way...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

True, but Victoria presently doesn't have the west-facing terminal capacity to do that. So you'd either need to rebuild the whole thing (which I'm in favour of) or, if you accept a bit of a 13/14 style walk to the concourse, to build 3 or 4 west facing terminal platforms abutting the Arena building, for which there is room (it can be clearly seen on a Google aerial view). I'm not sure, however, that any of those options would be cheaper than constructing 15/16 and the Oxford Road work, though, in which case I start to think that doing that would be better. You could even do a "super 15/16" and fit a couple of west facing terminal platforms in between 13/14 and the main trainshed - that all just depends on how big a deck you want to build.

I think you’re overthinking. You don’t necessarily need complete terminal capacity. The Ordsall Lane would then be feeding a single bay platform where the current reversing siding is, with the quarter-hourly Airport shuttle.

Northern operate half-hourly from Southport, half-hourly from Walkden and I believe half-hourly from Darwen. All of those services could realistically extend east of Victoria, or at least four of them, to Rochdale etc. The other two can tip passengers out and go empty to Newton Heath and back.

The long-distance stuff could legitimately have some services terminating at Victoria, e.g. a half-hourly TransPennine finisher, as coming from Stalybridge they’re already on the ‘correct side’ for the bay platforms next to Metrolink.

If you then assume you can’t get Northern to go to Stalybridge from the Salford direction, you either run a shuttle from the bays or get TfW’s Llandudno and Northern’s Chester via Newton to run through and stop at Ashton.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I have thought whether there is any merit in combining the XC services to Manchester and a TPEX service say to Hull or Middlesborough. Whilst it would improve communications from North-East England to the Midlands and Cheshire-Yorkshire connections. There would be the problem of having to miss out either Manchester Airport or Stockport on the route. That said, another Leeds to Birmingham service might be useful in tackling overcrowding, but I am not sure what the time difference would be with going via Sheffield.

 

[tbtc]

That already is the case, isn't it, apart from the Liverpool-Norwich. Admittedly this train has a punctuality problem, but that isn't insurmountable.

Nope; Southport to Alderley Edge, Blackpool to Hazel Grove and Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport all use parts of the route. I'm fairly certain that Bolton to Stockport was built into the franchise so it'd be politically difficult to remove the connection. The fright takes the Style route anyway so actually already fits in that respect.

As @Dspatula says, that's quite a few services per hour - four passenger trains per hour in each direction cross between the "Airport" lines and the "Stockport" lines (or vice versa).

Remove those and you could have a much smoother set of services at Piccadilly, effectively running as two stations (in the way that Clapham Junction sees lots of Victoria services and lots of Waterloo services without conflicts)

I wasn't sure if any of the freight came from the Stockport line, given the random nature of freight, so cheers for clarifying.

It's not even a branch, just one station call on a stub. If you could carry on through and connect with the other line at Ashley it wouldn't be so bad, but someone built an airport in the way...

In an ideal world, sure, it'd either have been a station on the line between Heald Green and Styal, or a through line onto the Mid Cheshire route - it could have been a huge benefit to regional connections (e.g. a through station on the Heald Green - Styall line could have meant lots of Piccadilly - Airport - Crewe services running that way (e.g. the Cardiff service and the London service stoping at the Airport)

However, given how things are, we have nine trains per hour from Piccadilly along the stub branch, eight of which terminate there (the other terminating at Crewe) the majority of which are non-stop between Piccadilly and the Airport, meaning the the local stations don't have a very good service - and can have quite a lop-sided service)

To ensure this, the nine services per hour are pretty badly timed (e.g. I think that - pre Covid - there was a seventeen minute gap in one direction, and a few times where three trains would run within a ten minute window) because the Airport services were tied to paths towards Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Llandudno/ Cleethorpes etc.

So, given the realities of where we are, I think the only solution would be to simplify the type of services to the Airport, remove as many conflicts between "Stockport" and "Airport" as possible (making 13/14 much easier, since everything from 13 would be for the Airport and everyone for the Airport would go from 13).

Maybe the Airport services could continue through to a combination of Leeds (via Victoria)/ Preston/ Liverpool, but at least that would remove the messy situation we currently have (which is great for someone in Newcastle travelling to Manchester Airport once a year but comes at the cost of reliability across much of northern England)

I have thought whether there is any merit in combining the XC services to Manchester and a TPEX service say to Hull or Middlesborough. Whilst it would improve communications from North-East England to the Midlands and Cheshire-Yorkshire connections. There would be the problem of having to miss out either Manchester Airport or Stockport on the route. That said, another Leeds to Birmingham service might be useful in tackling overcrowding, but I am not sure what the time difference would be with going via Sheffield.

Leeds - Birmingham is more like two and a half to three hours (via Manchester) depending on connection = compared to the current two hours (via Sheffield), but that takes the slow slog round Manchester into account.

Whilst HS2 should slash the Leeds - Birmingham times, I could see some merit in extending the XC services to Leeds etc, providing a number of through links (Stoke to the ECML, Huddersfield to the WCML), it has some merit

 

[adamedwards]

When the Werrington dive under is complete, extend the Ipswich to Peterborough service to Spalding or even Lincoln.

 

[Dspatula]

As @Dspatula says, that's quite a few services per hour - four passenger trains per hour in each direction cross between the "Airport" lines and the "Stockport" lines (or vice versa).

Remove those and you could have a much smoother set of services at Piccadilly, effectively running as two stations (in the way that Clapham Junction sees lots of Victoria services and lots of Waterloo services without conflicts)

I wasn't sure if any of the freight came from the Stockport line, given the random nature of freight, so cheers for clarifying.

Problem with trying to do that is you'd then have to fit 15 trains an hour on the two fast lines from Piccadilly to Slade lane not impossible but I suspect it would create as many problems as it solves.

For fairness I'll throw one of my own out to pull apart. Not technically an extension but I would change the Redcar to Manchester Airport to a Redcar to Chester based on my entirely anecdotal evidence of the number people who change between the current trains and the large number standing around for an hour when TPE are inevitably late. It would do all the stops the current Transport for Wales train does between Manchester and Chester, Transport for Wales would change to Northern's current Chester to Vic stopper pattern and the Northern service would be sent somewhere else.

 

[xotGD]

Tyne Valley services to Chester-le-Street and Durham.

Obviously, there's a host of practical reasons why this wouldn't actually happen.

Direct or via Newcastle?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I'll chuck in King's Cross - Cambridge - Ely - Brandon - Thetford - Norwich to the discussion.

I've always looked at the map and thought about that too.

How about:

To solve the problem of poor connectivity between the East Midlands and Manchester, would it be possible to extened one of the semi-fasts London to Sheffield services to Manchester via reversal at Sheffield? I don't know if there's any competition regulations that could be fouled for a second London to Manchester service, but considering as it would be a semi-fast service, I doubt it would be very competitive with Avanti and HS2 from St. Pancras, but much more useful for Luton/Bedford/Kettering/Leicester/Derby passengers.

 

[Dspatula]

I've always looked at the map and thought about that too.

How about:

To solve the problem of poor connectivity between the East Midlands and Manchester, would it be possible to extened one of the semi-fasts London to Sheffield services to Manchester via reversal at Sheffield? I don't know if there's any competition regulations that could be fouled for a second London to Manchester service, but considering as it would be a semi-fast service, I doubt it would be very competitive with Avanti and HS2 from St. Pancras, but much more useful for Luton/Bedford/Kettering/Leicester/Derby passengers.

Makes a lot of sense for the extra path between Manchester and Sheffield, I've had plenty of people ask me for trains towards Leicester and I'd be confident any study would show most of the unmet demand from Manchester through Sheffield is towards Derby and Leicester. There's no need to find an extra path on the midland main line and having slower, cheaper alternative Manchester to London train can only be a good thing.

 

[tbtc]

I've always looked at the map and thought about that too.

How about:

To solve the problem of poor connectivity between the East Midlands and Manchester, would it be possible to extened one of the semi-fasts London to Sheffield services to Manchester via reversal at Sheffield? I don't know if there's any competition regulations that could be fouled for a second London to Manchester service, but considering as it would be a semi-fast service, I doubt it would be very competitive with Avanti and HS2 from St. Pancras, but much more useful for Luton/Bedford/Kettering/Leicester/Derby passengers.

"East Midlands to Manchester" is an oft-discussed topic on here, but one problem is the geography means that one train can't serve all of the main three places (Leicester, Derby, Nottingham), without significant delay due to doubling back.

Extending the London - Sheffield service has some merit (I'm against it personally, I think that it'd make more sense to extend them through to Leeds, and if anything provides the "third" Sheffield - Manchester service then it'd be better to use the existing Hull - Sheffield or Lincoln - Sheffield services)

However, if you did want to provide a direct link for Luton/Bedford/Kettering - Manchester passengers then that'd mean slowing down the London - Sheffield service (London to Sheffield is already about ten minutes slower than London to York, despite York being a good bit further north).

Or, if you just mean that it'd be more convenient for Luton/ Bedford - Manchester passengers (than the coach/bus to Milton Keynes and change to the Avanti service) without changing the stopping pattern of the Sheffield services then you've got to consider the planned EMR timetable which will mean such passengers have to change at Kettering and Leicester anyway.

I'm just not convinced that the "East Midlands to Manchester" market is a significant enough market to go to the trouble of re-opening lines or tinkering with services to try to serve it - obviously there's *some* demand, but it's spread between three cities of roughly similar size (that can't all be easily served with one train without an uncompetitive journey time due to the diversion required to do all three)

 

[JonathanH]

"East Midlands to Manchester" is an oft-discussed topic on here, but one problem is the geography means that one train can't serve all of the main three places (Leicester, Derby, Nottingham), without significant delay due to doubling back.

Nottingham already has a link to Manchester. Is the thought that a train from London to Manchester via Sheffield should replace the existing train from Nottingham to Liverpool?

Extending the London - Sheffield service has some merit (I'm against it personally, I think that it'd make more sense to extend them through to Leeds, and if anything provides the "third" Sheffield - Manchester service then it'd be better to use the existing Hull - Sheffield or Lincoln - Sheffield services)

The problem of any extension beyond Sheffield is whether it is appropriate to use a Class 810 for that extension - eg is it worthwhile to tie up a 810 on a secondary part of the route? That is a bit like your previous postings about 10 Voyagers being north of York at any one time.

However, if you did want to provide a direct link for Luton/Bedford/Kettering - Manchester passengers then that'd mean slowing down the London - Sheffield service (London to Sheffield is already about ten minutes slower than London to York, despite York being a good bit further north).

The future for Luton and Bedford passengers travelling north is a change at Kettering in any case. I don't see stops being reintroduced in longer distance trains just because the Sheffield train goes to Manchester (or Leeds) so we are really only talking about people from Leicester north.

Or, if you just mean that it'd be more convenient for Luton/ Bedford - Manchester passengers (than the coach/bus to Milton Keynes and change to the Avanti service) without changing the stopping pattern of the Sheffield services then you've got to consider the planned EMR timetable which will mean such passengers have to change at Kettering and Leicester anyway.

Probably easier for Luton and Bedford passengers to go via Milton Keynes in any case as you say.

I'm just not convinced that the "East Midlands to Manchester" market is a significant enough market to go to the trouble of re-opening lines or tinkering with services to try to serve it - obviously there's *some* demand, but it's spread between three cities of roughly similar size (that can't all be easily served with one train without an uncompetitive journey time due to the diversion required to do all three)

Probably not - Derby to Manchester can be done via Stoke. Leicester to Manchester could in theory be done via the WCML as well although I guess it isn't that straightforward.

 

[xotGD]

A same-platform change at Chesterfield isn't too much faff.

 

[E100]

Direct or via Newcastle?

I think it'd have to be via Newcastle due to the large numbers wanting to go there, much as I would like to justify the use of the south part of the triangle for passenger services. Thankfully the two bridges would allow for this to happen without a reversal being required.

Thinking about this a bit more, a potentially better option would be for fast accelerating electrics to take on the Morpeth duties and carry those through to Chester-le-Street and Durham etc, with the Tyne Valley Cl156/158's only running to Newcastle /Teeside via the coast. Even so with the electrics, I doubt there are the paths let alone the loops needed at Durham.

 

[A0]

Makes a lot of sense for the extra path between Manchester and Sheffield, I've had plenty of people ask me for trains towards Leicester and I'd be confident any study would show most of the unmet demand from Manchester through Sheffield is towards Derby and Leicester. There's no need to find an extra path on the midland main line and having slower, cheaper alternative Manchester to London train can only be a good thing.

"and I'd be confident any study would show most of the unmet demand from Manchester through Sheffield is towards Derby and Leicester. "

Project Rio rather disproved that theory. Had there been that demand, then MML would almost certainly have sought to retain a part of the Rio service, that they didn't suggests the demand isn't there.

 

[mrcheek]

Since Northern have postponed introduction of their Scarborough to York service, we should extend another service to Scarborough.

Surely the best way to do this would be to take the existing York-Hull-Scarborough service, and start it from Scarborough. So it becomes Scarborough to Scarborough.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Since Northern have postponed introduction of their Scarborough to York service, we should extend another service to Scarborough.

Surely the best way to do this would be to take the existing York-Hull-Scarborough service, and start it from Scarborough. So it becomes Scarborough to Scarborough.

I wonder how station boards would advertise such a service.

 

[Killingworth]

Since Northern have postponed introduction of their Scarborough to York service, we should extend another service to Scarborough.

Surely the best way to do this would be to take the existing York-Hull-Scarborough service, and start it from Scarborough. So it becomes Scarborough to Scarborough.

We'd be going round in circles with ever more points for delay. Inevitably Hull and York to Scarborough sections would end up late!

 

[YorksLad12]

I wonder how station boards would advertise such a service.

From Scarborough: Hull via York / York via Hull.
From Hull: Scarborough via York / York via Scarborough.
From York: Hull via Scarborough / Scarborough via Hull.

Or... give the final destination for the faster route and the penultimate stop for the slower, as happens elsewhere (Leeds-York v Leeds-Poppleton, Huddersfield-Leeds v Huddersfield-Bramley (when that was a through route)).

 

[quantinghome]

Extend Leeds-Lancaster to Barrow and/or Windermere.

Extend Leeds-Nottingham to Leicester.

Extend Leeds-Manchester to North Wales.