Chester - Manchester +8 mins

[leejayd]

I noticed after the change to the time table there is a change to the 7:40 which currently gets to Oxford Rd at 8:41.

Going forward it will be 7:38 arriving 8:47.

What is the reason for the slower journey? Is it a slower train or due to increasesed braking distance etc..

 

[headshot119]

In the new timetable it will be a 67+3XMK3+DVT, presumably the extra time is to allow for the slam doors.

 

[PHILIPE]

I noticed after the change to the time table there is a change to the 7:40 which currently gets to Oxford Rd at 8:41.

Going forward it will be 7:38 arriving 8:47.

What is the reason for the slower journey? Is it a slower train or due to increasesed braking distance etc..

In the new timetable it will be a 67+3XMK3+DVT, presumably the extra time is to allow for the slam doors.

It still runs on 100mph timings as is the norm for all along the route but there is additional dwell time at stations (1 min increased to 2) presumably as said, to allow for the Slam Doors.

 

[Viscount702]

Thought it was 4xMK3

 

[Welshman]

I appreciate the extra time needed for the slam-door stock, but still, 1hr 9 minutes is still incredibly slow for only 40 miles!

 

[The Planner]

Why? 6 stops of 2 minutes each, the crawl around Earlestown , Castlfield corridor etc....

 

[merlodlliw]

Thought it was 4xMK3

It is four 4 carriages
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It still runs on 100mph timings as is the norm for all along the route but there is additional dwell time at stations (1 min increased to 2) presumably as said, to allow for the Slam Doors.

I understand it will be using platform one on arriving from Crewe,in place of platform 4, the two minutes is to get rid of it for other stock.Plus of course the slam doors, many of the thousands who use this line wont have used a loco haul before.
Anybody seen the stock out on trial yet?

 

[northwichcat]

It's scheduled to be stopped for 2 minutes at every station except Frodsham and Manchester Oxford Rd in the WTT: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30227/2014/12/15/advanced

The previous service is scheduled to be stopped for 30 seconds or 1 minute at all stations except Manchester Oxford Rd: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30225/2014/12/15/advanced

 

[The Planner]

Can't see that one running to time unless no one gets on.

 

[FQ]

It's scheduled to be stopped for 2 minutes at every station except Frodsham and Manchester Oxford Rd in the WTT: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30227/2014/12/15/advanced

The previous service is scheduled to be stopped for 30 seconds or 1 minute at all stations except Manchester Oxford Rd: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C30225/2014/12/15/advanced

Surly you mean Helsby and Manchester Oxford Road.

 

[wijit]

Sorry for asking, I have no idea how allocations work. But does this have a return journey? Or does the loco hauled stock just go back empty?

 

[Freightmaster]

Sorry for asking, I have no idea how allocations work. But does this have a return journey? Or does the loco hauled stock just go back empty?

Full diagram info can be found in the main discussion topic about these trains;
specifically on page 15:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=103408&page=15


MARK

 

[merlodlliw]

Can't see that one running to time unless no one gets on.

But they will get on, the current 175 three car is standing only, I wonder if ATW will have extra staff on call for the loco haul, like they do at Wrexham for Gerald.
I am aware a fitter will be on board, to appease other tocs who fear a breakdown on shared lines.

 

[quarella]

It still runs on 100mph timings as is the norm for all along the route but there is additional dwell time at stations (1 min increased to 2) presumably as said, to allow for the Slam Doors.

I am not an expert in such matters but acceleration and braking are unlikely to be at the same level of a 175 either.

Going forward it will be 7:38 arriving 8:47.

Is there another direction it could take?

 

[Tracky]

It's a shame that an unglamorous project like a flyover at Warrington would never get funding. If trains from the Helsby lines ran on what are currently the up lines at Warrington and were able to climb to a flyover at Winwick, the fasts could be kept completely separate. Virgins could whizz by on the down side and ATW trains wouldn't have that wait on the journey back to Chester.

 

[PHILIPE]

I am not an expert in such matters but acceleration and braking are unlikely to be at the same level of a 175 either.



Is there another direction it could take?

If it needs to call at the required stations, No.

 

[merlodlliw]

If it needs to call at the required stations, No.

Correct, it has to end up at Longsight on the old Belle Vue excursion platform due to its length,to await its path back, back in the days of the Manchester Club Train it took 55 minutes Manchester to Chester,calling only at Warrington only.

Has anybody seen the stock out on trial? im sure the 4 mark 3s,dvt etc will need an airing before next Monday.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there another direction it could take?

The alternative from Chester is 0735 VT, change at Crewe 0754 into 0811 VT to Manchester P arr 0849. Only 3 stops.
Time for a coffee at Crewe. Cheaper than ATW too on VT-only tickets.
Also works from the coast but not many return options.

 

[northwichcat]

If it needs to call at the required stations, No.

Even if ATW wanted to run the loco-hauled as an extra to the minimum service provision it wouldn't be able to go via Stockport (either via the Mid-Cheshire line or via Crewe) as there would be no path, unless ATW terminated one of their South Wales services at Crewe in lieu.

 

[Tracky]

........on VT-only tickets..........

............. but not many return options.

Don't get me started!

 

[berneyarms]

There are four evening Virgin Trains options, but they do indeed involve a longer wait at Crewe:

Depart Manchester Piccadilly at 16:55, arrive Crewe at 17:27, depart Crewe at 17:49 arrive Chester at 18:08, and continue to North Wales (to Bangor)

Depart Manchester Piccadilly at 17:55, arrive Crewe at 18:27, depart Crewe at 18:57 arrive Chester at 19:16, and continue to North Wales (to Holyhead)

Depart Manchester Piccadilly at 18:55, arrive Crewe at 19:27, depart Crewe at 19:56 arrive Chester at 20:15, and continue to North Wales (to Holyhead)

Depart Manchester Piccadilly at 19:55, arrive Crewe at 20:27, depart Crewe at 20:49 arrive Chester at 21:13, and continue to North Wales (to Holyhead)

 

[The Planner]

Even if ATW wanted to run the loco-hauled as an extra to the minimum service provision it wouldn't be able to go via Stockport (either via the Mid-Cheshire line or via Crewe) as there would be no path, unless ATW terminated one of their South Wales services at Crewe in lieu.

Holyhead loco drivers dont sign that anyway if the info I was told is correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a shame that an unglamorous project like a flyover at Warrington would never get funding. If trains from the Helsby lines ran on what are currently the up lines at Warrington and were able to climb to a flyover at Winwick, the fasts could be kept completely separate. Virgins could whizz by on the down side and ATW trains wouldn't have that wait on the journey back to Chester.

Thats already appeared on a fag packet so isnt as massively unlikely as it sounds.

 

[quarella]

If it needs to call at the required stations, No.

Whoah. I wasn't thinking about other routes. It was a facetious response to the use of "Going forward" which seems to be the latest in management b%$£** bingo and is usually un-necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it needs to call at the required stations, No.

Whoah. I wasn't thinking about other routes. It was a facetious response to the use of "Going forward" which seems to be the latest in management b%$£** bingo and is usually un-necessary.

 

[merlodlliw]

Whoah. I wasn't thinking about other routes. It was a facetious response to the use of "Going forward" which seems to be the latest in management b%$£** bingo and is usually un-necessary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whoah. I wasn't thinking about other routes. It was a facetious response to the use of "Going forward" which seems to be the latest in management b%$£** bingo and is usually un-necessary.

have a look at the Gerald thread I put up on general rail discussion,Canton 67 towing empty stock up North,could the stock be WG mark3s on the way to Crewe?

Bob