Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[notlob.divad]

It sort-of does - the former North West Express services to Barrow and Windermere.

But they where part of the TPE franchise until the most recent franchise changes so comparison of historical subsidy/premiums needs to take this into account.

 

[notlob.divad]

That's also one of the problems in the North - the trains only go to the big cities (and places on the way to the big cities.) From Winsford you can get a train to Liverpool. However, despite there being a direct line to Warrington from Winsford and Warrington being closer to Winsford than Liverpool there is no train service.

Same problem for Northwich / Knutsford <-> Liverpool flows

 

[HSTEd]

Rewriting the entire Northern Timetable from scratch, given the limitations caused by longer distance trains, is far from a simple task however.

Even if all the stub lines around the Merseyrail area, the Tyne and Wear MEtro area and so on were taken out and added to those simple networks, there are still huge numbers of lines going in every direction.

Not even train can have a five minute connection cross-platform with every other train.
Not unless you have the money for a huge expansion of city centre stations a la Switzerland. The Zurich Hbf station complex has 26 platforms if various types.

You will have to accept some ~28 minute connections with a half hourly network base timetable.

 

[backontrack]

So faster journey times are okay, as long as they are only faster journey times to places in "the north"?

Faster journey times to London would turn northern places into dormitory suburbs but faster journey times to Leeds/ Manchester are A Good Thing?

I don't remember anyone moaning that the Todmorden Curve would turn Burnley into a dormitory of Manchester and change the nature of the town. I'm sure I keep hearing that SELRAP would be A Good Thing for Colne since it would allow large numbers of people to go work further afield (and presumably turn Colne into a dormitory town?).

Is the new Northern Connect service from Nottingham/ Sheffield to Leeds/ Bradford A Bad Thing because it'll make some of these cities a dormitory of the other?

Should we be improving the "provincial centres" of the north by slowing down London trains, maybe by having a manual token handover somewhere?

You're right, but our friend in Bolton is also right when he points out that it makes more sense to speed up journeys that people are more likely to make if they're slower than they should be. You never hear people complaining about how long it takes to get to London from York or Preston.

For the record, my mum commuted from Durham to Manchester in the 1990s, and it was hellish. Now things are a bit better, but it's still bad considering that it takes half an hour longer to get from Durham to London then it does to get to another large city that's half the distance by rail.

And yes, I do think this is because these places are in the North and away from London. Although I don't think direct services will turn Leeds into some suburb of the Big Smoke, we are beginning to see what happens to northern towns and cities if London is prioritised above regional connectivity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some. But SBB doesn't connect everything with everything, in any case. It plans for the ones that are actually useful.

 

[HSTEd]

Some. But SBB doesn't connect everything with everything, in any case. It plans for the ones that are actually useful.

Problem is its often not clear which connections are useful, for example I would not want to even try and work out which connections are useful at Manchester Picadilly - especially once you consider you must allow different amounts of time for different platform combinations.

 

[Bantamzen]

Priority 1 should be the integrated ticketing, particularly now you have smart phones and contactless payment, you should be able to buy a through ticket for all forms of transport from your mobile whilst stood at the bus stop.

I totally agree, in this day and age there really is no excuse not to be able to use the available technology to allow cross-modal ticketing, subject to agreement between providers of course (which frankly should be a franchise / operator requirement)

Priority 2 which is actually the easier, is timetabling the trains so that they provide good connections, and I mean really good connections, between local services and the intercity services.

Again, I agree. And to provide another example from my home station, I sometimes travel to London and the 06:30 Bradford FS - Kings Cross (06:36 from Shipley) would be an ideal service, expect for the first train leaving Baildon at 06:37 missing then VTEC by 4 mins (and sometimes having to wait at Shipley East if the VTEC is a bit late out). Again a small example, but a few minutes difference in timetabling would mean not only connections to this, but better commuting to and from Leeds in general.

Priority 3 should be to co-ordinate the bus times to the trains at the local stations, and co-coordinating the bus times between the buses. However this needs to be tied with construction of proper bus/train interchanges. There are decent/good examples where it has been done or they are at least close: Blackburn, Liverpool South Parkway, Newton-Le-Willows (plans), others such as Wigan, and Preston are woeful.

And for a third time, I agree. Cross-integration of services and timetables is the way to maximise potential revenue. Of course there needs to be a lot of work co-ordination the UK's fractured transport network, and understanding where the flows exist when they don't show up on rail usage stats. For example a poster above questions if many passengers move between the Wharfe Valley and the Calder, but even a causal observation of the traffic that flows along the Shipley-Airedale Road in the city shows a large flow travelling from the North heading directly South and West. But because rail passengers rarely travel via Bradford (it is far easier to go via Leeds), the actual flow of commuters is unavailable statistically and thus is ignored.

 

[coppercapped]

Several schemes have been proposed for a Bradford cross rail in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, but none have come to fruition. The closest was a line from Bowling Junction to Shipley via Laisterdyke and Eccleshill which missed out Bradford Exchange unless you wanted to reverse (and went nowhere near Forster Square) .

The irony now is that little Windsor & Eton has a better chance of getting a CrossRail than Bradford.

Bradford has no First Class train services at all apart from the five London trains provided by GC and Virgin. This is perhaps a measure of how poorly served the city is and how unattractive a rail destination it is to businessmen.

Why should every single HS2 (E) train go to Leeds and nowhere else? Is Leeds really all that important?

The Windsor and Eton 'Crossrail' is an idea being promoted by a local businessman. It aims to raise some funding by using existing railway sites for housing but is still dependent on funding from central Government. The chances of it happening in isolation within the next twenty years are very, very small.

It has a mention in the Hansford Review - and this is the critical issue - Bradford doesn't. This is because the Windsor people submitted comments to Hansford - Bradford obviously didn't, it's certainly not mentioned in the Review.

And the last but one paragraph is completely back to front. If the city is 'unattractive' to businessmen (why not business people?) then that lies with the city and not its transport. First Class accommodation, or even a first class rail service, follows the demand for the service - the provision of such a service does not generate a demand. Transport is a service industry - it itself reflects what people want.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

 

[Bantamzen]

The Windsor and Eton 'Crossrail' is an idea being promoted by a local businessman. It aims to raise some funding by using existing railway sites for housing but is still dependent on funding from central Government. The chances of it happening in isolation within the next twenty years are very, very small.

It has a mention in the Hansford Review - and this is the critical issue - Bradford doesn't. This is because the Windsor people submitted comments to Hansford - Bradford obviously didn't, it's certainly not mentioned in the Review.

And the last but one paragraph is completely back to front. If the city is 'unattractive' to businessmen (why not business people?) then that lies with the city and not its transport. First Class accommodation, or even a first class rail service, follows the demand for the service - the provision of such a service does not generate a demand. Transport is a service industry - it itself reflects what people want.

If the highlighted were true, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. If you honestly think people want to shoehorn onto overcrowded trains, no matter whereabouts in the UK, sometimes standing for hours, I'd have to challenge this assertion. The railway network as it stands does not reflect what the people want, it reflects what the accountants and bean counters want (all in my humble opinion of course ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Problem is its often not clear which connections are useful, for example I would not want to even try and work out which connections are useful at Manchester Picadilly - especially once you consider you must allow different amounts of time for different platform combinations.

To some extent true, though you can look at it based on a principle of regional connecting with regional, and branch lines connecting with regional to key destinations (i.e. look at travel demand, possibly even using things like road traffic surveys so you can see where the suppressed demand is).

It's not an easy job, but in my view would be a very worthwhile one.

 

[Holly]

That's also one of the problems in the North - the trains only go to the big cities (and places on the way to the big cities.) From Winsford you can get a train to Liverpool. However, despite there being a direct line to Warrington from Winsford and Warrington being closer to Winsford than Liverpool there is no train service.

There used to be a service. But it ended when Wharton and Over station closed in 1947.

I can remember the remnant Acton Bridge to Warrington service in the 1950s. Steam powered push-and-pull that almost no-one ever used.

Now if you electrified the very few miles from Acton Bridge to Northwich and provided modern service using electric trains from Northwich to Liverpool via Warrington, that would see good usage.

 

[pemma]

Now if you electrified the very few miles from Acton Bridge to Northwich and provided modern service using electric trains from Northwich to Liverpool via Warrington, that would see good usage.

There's a strong business case been built by Rail North and freight operators for electrifying the whole line. Given Chris Grayling seems to like electrifying little sections don't let him hear your proposal for electrifying a couple of miles rather than the whole route.

Personally I don't think it would have a good business case unless the service extended to Altrincham. There's already a Liverpool service from Hartford and while Hartford station isn't conventionally located for much of Northwich, the same could be said about Northwich station.

Speaking of which when is Rail Minister Paul Maynard supposed to be visiting? It was said he would visit this week and I haven't heard anything since. Is the plan for him to come on a strike day when very few trains are running?

 

[backontrack]

I think that the problem is with our mindset. Let's not think about just connecting places to London.

Supposing you live in the village of Nawton in North Yorkshire. There's not much in Nawton, save for some eateries and pubs, a church, a primary school and a car dealer, so you often have to travel elsewhere.

The nearest town to you is Helmsley. Helmsley has a few amenities; a Co-op, a branch of Barclays, a few touristy shops (there's an Edinburgh Woollen Mill even here), cafés, restaurants, a bookshop, a Thomas the Baker (lucky you!), a cheese shop, a few pubs, a church, even a Fat Face for those with big pockets. But there isn't a doctor's surgery or a post office. So you drive along the road to...

Kirkbymoorside. Now, there are a few shops in Kirkbymoorside. Once again, there's a Co-op, but with a SPAR, a Surgery, a Post Office, a Library, two churches, a pet shop, a Quaker society, some pubs and eateries, a music shop, a music school, an ATM, a DIY shop, you get the idea. But there are some things that you can't get in Kirkbymoorside, so you continue along the A170 to Pickering.

Pickering is much larger. It has a lot of the things that Kirkbymoorside has, like a library, and much more of them, too. And it also has different things, like a museum, a heritage railway and a fish shop. And other things, too. That's not the point. This isn't the Yellow Pages. Even after you've bought your cod and chips, you are still not contented. Neither of Pickering's Co-operative Food stores will alleviate your need for a larger supermarket. So you get in your car and drive down to Malton.

Malton and neighbouring Norton-on-Derwent together have around double the population of Pickering. They also have both a Morrisons and an ASDA. There's a choice of banks, a choice of pharmacies, a choice of bakers (Thomas and Coopland's - a tough choice...), a museum, and a cinema. There's a saddlery, a branch of Costa Coffee so that you can catch up with your Caramel Latte Frostino needs, and even a shop dedicated to cricket equipment - this is Yorkshire after all. Norton and Malton both have libraries, and there's a railway station on the Leeds-Scarborough line between the two. There's a gym in Norton - complete with swimming pool. But what if there you need to buy things that Malton and Norton - shock - don't have? There's only one thing for it. You're going to have to head into the Big City.

YORK. York has shopping centres, coffee shops, clothes shops galore. It has six branches of Thomas the Baker. It even has a Disney Store, hooray! It has a Betty's, a Sports Direct, a McDonald's, and a theatre. And it also has a large railway station, next to an even larger railway museum. York has churches galore. It even has a Minster. For Nawton, this is the Big City, the regional hub, the city to suit your every need and whim. London? Maybe an annual day-trip to show the kids. Or maybe you could go to Edinburgh, which you can from here just as easily.

OK, do you see the point of that now? Truth is, everywhere in the UK has a different regional hub. Supposing you lived in Nawton, Helmsley, Kirkbymoorside, or any of those places. Would London really be that important for you in day-to-day life?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that the problem is with our mindset. Let's not think about just connecting places to London.

I don't see in what way the Northern network actually does that?

At present, it's set up to connect smaller places to their nearest big place, and bigger places to bigger places on the cheap (i.e. with lots of stops) - just with no coordination between the two.

The vast majority of London-goers I think drive or take a taxi to their nearest VTWC/VTEC/EMT station.

 

[coppercapped]

If the highlighted were true, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. If you honestly think people want to shoehorn onto overcrowded trains, no matter whereabouts in the UK, sometimes standing for hours, I'd have to challenge this assertion. The railway network as it stands does not reflect what the people want, it reflects what the accountants and bean counters want (all in my humble opinion of course ).

I wrote transport, not railway with care. In the great scheme of things what I wrote is true. That there are overcrowded trains is due to the way that railway transport services are supplied and funded. It also reflects that people's objections are not as strong as they claim. If they really, really, really didn't like travelling in crowded conditions then they wouldn't. At the moment it seems that the gain outweighs the pain...

In general and in all industries there are only three ways of controlling demand for any particular good or service. These are by

• queueing
• price or
• rationing.

You can make a choice about the method one selects, but not then complain about the consequences. Airlines, for example, control passenger numbers by a combination of price and rationing. (You can only travel if you have a seat). Cruise ships do the same thing.

So, you don't want overcrowded trains? Then put the price up - or issue ration coupons (seat reservations) for each train. Or close the gate to new passengers when the train is full, the queue is then not on the platform.

(There is always the possibility of increasing the capacity of the infrastructure and trains - but this also has to be affordable to both the funders and the users. And there is always the chance that in a few years one will be back to the original situation).

It is clear that this analysis does not address the reasons for the demand in the first place. Suffice it to say that it's a problem that affects all 'post-subsistence agriculture' societies - that is, urban societies. When people gather together to get things done then there will be a demand for transport to get them there and back again as there will not be enough room in any given area for both work places and housing.

At best, the conditions will be 'acceptable', and people will complain...

 

[backontrack]

I don't see in what way the Northern network actually does that?

At present, it's set up to connect smaller places to their nearest big place, and bigger places to bigger places on the cheap (i.e. with lots of stops) - just with no coordination between the two.

The vast majority of London-goers I think drive or take a taxi to their nearest VTWC/VTEC/EMT station.

I was thinking more about infrastructure and transport improvements. Spending all the money improving journey times to London is just not very sensible. We should aim for a better-connected, more integrated network instead (with earlier buses from Kirkbymoorside and Helmsley to York, for example, and some services to Malton too).

 

[6Gman]

Same problem for Northwich / Knutsford <-> Liverpool flows

That's why we need my Manchester - Stockport - Northwich - Runcorn - Liverpool service!



One day. One day.

 

[158756]

Part of the problem that Northern has is that many passenger journeys are short but many rail journeys are long.

The timetable requires it to run a Manchester - Bolton service all the way to Southport/ Clitheroe/ Barrow, even when a significant number of people have got out at Bolton.

So they have trains that are insufficient for short distance passenger demand but then have the costs (fuel, staffing, track access etc) in running them all the way to distant termini.

Maybe profitability would be better if (after electrification) they ran some eight coach EMU shuttles from Manchester to Bolton to soak up demand (and thinned out the number of two coach diesel services going all the way to Clitheroe etc)?

According to a document produced by the CRP a few years ago 2 of the 3 biggest flows on the line between Bolton and Clitheroe are to Manchester. If you think the line is uneconomic now you won't want to see what it'd be like when that demand disappears (and it will, because rail in the North struggles to compete on journey times without changing train along the way) . And if you can't justify providing a service for the biggest flow on a line you may as well close it.

An 8 coach train to Bolton would carry a lot of fresh air at current frequencies, and if you reduce the frequency they'll still carry fresh air because you'll get the same problem as the likes of Kearsley and Moses Gate - the roads are fast enough and the distance short enough for cars and buses to be competitive so even commuters will switch to alternative modes. If you want profitability, the best thing you could do would be to close every railway north of Watford Gap and set up a bus company.

 

[Moonshot]

According to a document produced by the CRP a few years ago 2 of the 3 biggest flows on the line between Bolton and Clitheroe are to Manchester. If you think the line is uneconomic now you won't want to see what it'd be like when that demand disappears (and it will, because rail in the North struggles to compete on journey times without changing train along the way) . And if you can't justify providing a service for the biggest flow on a line you may as well close it.

An 8 coach train to Bolton would carry a lot of fresh air at current frequencies, and if you reduce the frequency they'll still carry fresh air because you'll get the same problem as the likes of Kearsley and Moses Gate - the roads are fast enough and the distance short enough for cars and buses to be competitive so even commuters will switch to alternative modes. If you want profitability, the best thing you could do would be to close every railway north of Watford Gap and set up a bus company.

An 8 coach train certainly wouldnt fit either at salford crescent or indeed salford central.....which is where a significant amount of Clitheroe line passengers actually disembark.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Poor connections are not just a Northern thing. Try looking up how to travel by train from Farnborough Main to Ascot by train which is about 25 minute car journey and it will take you about 75 minutes by train for most services listed, if you are luck you may just get a 56 to 61 minute journey time but that involves walking to Farnborough North (not so fun if it is raining) but then does only involve one other change.

Of that 75 minutes only 41 minutes will be on the train due to having to change twice.

For relatively short local journeys of that nature it's inevitable that the car will very often be quickest. Fact of life. OTOH through the day at least a 30-minute interval service with a journey time of under an hour, even allowing for Ascot station not being in the town centre, is available by catching a bus to Frimley for a train forward. Information easily found on Traveline site. The problem of course is the lack of through ticketing which is a problem in most parts of the country. But not London.

 

[158756]

Bantazem made a fair point....it seems to me that connectivity in Northerns case ( ie the topic of this thread ) would be about ensuring that anywhere within say a 20 mile radiius of Leeds actually has a connection to Leeds......and that also applies to Manchester, Newcastle , Liverpool etc...

There was a study of demand at recently reopened stations a few years ago. Granted most weren't in the North and most were in fairly small towns. But the theme was that in almost all cases, the overwhelming majority of demand was to the nearest city. Most places in the North have such a service - Baildon obviously doesn't and can't easily gain one, Burnley and Accrington have only recently got one, the Merseyrail stubs are somewhat problematic but don't have any large places on them. Lines which don't go to the nearest city or are far from it tend to have low usage.

My complaints about rail travel in particularly East Lancashire but also the North in general aren't about connections to random far off places but that a) trains are slow, with poor alignments we're rather stuck with, many small stations and rolling stock which is slow to accelerate from the many stations. And b) that IMO there should be a basic standard of facilities that a train and any non-tiny station should have - some form of shelter, lighting, CIS and ticket buying facility on a station, decent parking facilities at busier stations, trains cleaned and refurbished in the case of the sprinters to a decent standard, preferably with an information display, and things such as WiFi and aircon on longer journeys.

The current franchise will hopefully move towards solving b), and hopefully Rochdale's new platform will allow improved journey times to Manchester. I would say the Colne branch could be improved by decent connections at Rose Grove, but I'm not sure how many passengers would actually use it.

 

[Moonshot]

There was a study of demand at recently reopened stations a few years ago. Granted most weren't in the North and most were in fairly small towns. But the theme was that in almost all cases, the overwhelming majority of demand was to the nearest city. Most places in the North have such a service - Baildon obviously doesn't and can't easily gain one, Burnley and Accrington have only recently got one, the Merseyrail stubs are somewhat problematic but don't have any large places on them. Lines which don't go to the nearest city or are far from it tend to have low usage.

My complaints about rail travel in particularly East Lancashire but also the North in general aren't about connections to random far off places but that a) trains are slow, with poor alignments we're rather stuck with, many small stations and rolling stock which is slow to accelerate from the many stations. And b) that IMO there should be a basic standard of facilities that a train and any non-tiny station should have - some form of shelter, lighting, CIS and ticket buying facility on a station, decent parking facilities at busier stations, trains cleaned and refurbished in the case of the sprinters to a decent standard, preferably with an information display, and things such as WiFi and aircon on longer journeys.

The current franchise will hopefully move towards solving b), and hopefully Rochdale's new platform will allow improved journey times to Manchester. I would say the Colne branch could be improved by decent connections at Rose Grove, but I'm not sure how many passengers would actually use it.

A decent post .....so in reality the phrase " better connectivty " in Northern Rail land is all about improving the connections we already have to the major employment cities rather than some waffle about obscure journeys from Withington via Tram to London.

An issue with Clitheroe/Accrington/Burnly to Manchester is the long stretches of track with less than ideal line speeds. Some significant chunks are rated at just 45mph max. Add in some absolute block signalling and low acceleration of trains just means that journey times cannot be optimised.

 

[mike57]

To answer the OPs question, Yes it is

I use the Transpennine York - Leeds - Manchester route on average once a week at various times of the day and other routes regularly.

3 coach trains are just not adequate, in the rush hour they are rammed, outside the rush hour there will still be standing passengers at times.

New trains are coming, but December 2017 is now May 2018 by the looks of things and i'll bet that even with 5 coach trains they will still be rammed.

Transpennine (or who ever makes the decisions) seems to think that shoving more 3 coach trains down the same piece of 2 line track will improve the service, it doesn't, as soon as something even slightly wrong the knock on is dramatic and swift.

TPE trains calling at stops like Garforth and Irlam in the peak hours (sorry if you use these services) York Leeds Manchester needs to be a proper Inter City service, with Inter City rolling stock and calling patterns.

The move of services from Man Pic to Man Vic - If you are traveling onwards from Manchester and need a train from Man Pic thats going to add 20 - 30 mins to your journey, definitely not an improvement, just a cheap fix for the capacity problems at Man Pic

The service from other major centres e.g. Bradford are poor, with a mix of old tired rolling stock and no fast services. Some existing well used services are getting altered in May 2018, and not for the better, e.g. loss of direct Bridington Beverley Hull Doncaster Sheffield services.

My solution to the York Leeds Manchester issues:

Run 8 to 10 carriage trains using proper Inter City stock calling at only York Leeds Huddersfield Man Pic. at 4 trains per hour, this would result in more robust timetable. Eastern end 1 each to Newcastle Middlesbrough Scarborough Hull, Western end 2 ph each to the Airport and Liverpool, one via Chat Moss and 1 via Warrington. The only problem I can see with this is platform length at Man Airport.

Create passing opportunities where possible, which would be Crossgates, reinstate through tracks, Dewsbury reinstate westbound through line, around Mirfeild, Slaithwaite there is room for 4 tracks, and Western end of Standedge tunnel around Diggle. This means that the Inter City trains can overtake stoppers, either as timetabled moves or during disruption. Then remove/reduce the 5-10 minutes timetable padding.

Sort out Man Pic problems, build platforms 15/16 possibly build a flyover from Ardwick across the tracks to the Man Ox Rd lines.

Notice I haven't mentioned electrification, I don't think electrification will sort the current problems out.

For the feeder/commuter lines, Pacer to be consigned to the scrap heap, Older DMU stock to be retained for service strengthening during rush hours/other peak period.

Pie in the sky, probably, there are not enough votes in it for politicians to back it. If a few high profile politicians thought they might loose their seats because of it I am sure things would happen quickly and money would be found, after all a 'rummage down the sofa' found money for Northern Ireland.

 

[pemma]

That's why we need my Manchester - Stockport - Northwich - Runcorn - Liverpool service!



One day. One day.

Build a western Airport link and have Liverpool to Widnes to Manchester Airport to Northwich to Runcorn to Liverpool

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To answer the OPs question, Yes it is

I use the Transpennine York - Leeds - Manchester route on average once a week at various times of the day and other routes regularly.

3 coach trains are just not adequate, in the rush hour they are rammed, outside the rush hour there will still be standing passengers at times.

New trains are coming, but December 2017 is now May 2018 by the looks of things and i'll bet that even with 5 coach trains they will still be rammed.

Transpennine (or who ever makes the decisions) seems to think that shoving more 3 coach trains down the same piece of 2 line track will improve the service, it doesn't, as soon as something even slightly wrong the knock on is dramatic and swift.

TPE trains calling at stops like Garforth and Irlam in the peak hours (sorry if you use these services) York Leeds Manchester needs to be a proper Inter City service, with Inter City rolling stock and calling patterns.

The move of services from Man Pic to Man Vic - If you are traveling onwards from Manchester and need a train from Man Pic thats going to add 20 - 30 mins to your journey, definitely not an improvement, just a cheap fix for the capacity problems at Man Pic

The service from other major centres e.g. Bradford are poor, with a mix of old tired rolling stock and no fast services. Some existing well used services are getting altered in May 2018, and not for the better, e.g. loss of direct Bridington Beverley Hull Doncaster Sheffield services.

My solution to the York Leeds Manchester issues:

Run 8 to 10 carriage trains using proper Inter City stock calling at only York Leeds Huddersfield Man Pic. at 4 trains per hour, this would result in more robust timetable. Eastern end 1 each to Newcastle Middlesbrough Scarborough Hull, Western end 2 ph each to the Airport and Liverpool, one via Chat Moss and 1 via Warrington. The only problem I can see with this is platform length at Man Airport.

Create passing opportunities where possible, which would be Crossgates, reinstate through tracks, Dewsbury reinstate westbound through line, around Mirfeild, Slaithwaite there is room for 4 tracks, and Western end of Standedge tunnel around Diggle. This means that the Inter City trains can overtake stoppers, either as timetabled moves or during disruption. Then remove/reduce the 5-10 minutes timetable padding.

Sort out Man Pic problems, build platforms 15/16 possibly build a flyover from Ardwick across the tracks to the Man Ox Rd lines.

Notice I haven't mentioned electrification, I don't think electrification will sort the current problems out.

For the feeder/commuter lines, Pacer to be consigned to the scrap heap, Older DMU stock to be retained for service strengthening during rush hours/other peak period.

Pie in the sky, probably, there are not enough votes in it for politicians to back it. If a few high profile politicians thought they might loose their seats because of it I am sure things would happen quickly and money would be found, after all a 'rummage down the sofa' found money for Northern Ireland.

If you reinstate the through line at Dewsbury you'd actually SLOW non-stopping services rather than speeding them up. Have a look at the alignments either side of the station. The Westbound line (serving P2) already occupies the optimum alignment for non-stopping services, due to the curvature of the line either side of the station.

 

[Bantamzen]

I wrote transport, not railway with care. In the great scheme of things what I wrote is true. That there are overcrowded trains is due to the way that railway transport services are supplied and funded. It also reflects that people's objections are not as strong as they claim. If they really, really, really didn't like travelling in crowded conditions then they wouldn't. At the moment it seems that the gain outweighs the pain...

I disagree, people don’t like being herded onto crowded trains and many people already avoid them because of it. But those people doing so don’t do it because they are content in any way with the situation, they do it because they have to. If for example every standee on say the London bound trains in the peaks suddenly reverted to cars (assuming of course they have access to one), imagine what the traffic would be like? Most people putting up with it do so purely because of time and/or cost, it is not a lifestyle choice and often not a choice at all.

In general and in all industries there are only three ways of controlling demand for any particular good or service. These are by

• queueing
• price or
• rationing.

You can make a choice about the method one selects, but not then complain about the consequences. Airlines, for example, control passenger numbers by a combination of price and rationing. (You can only travel if you have a seat). Cruise ships do the same thing.

You have missed one other option, expansion. It is true that industries do use the above three methods on occasions, but where they perceive potential demand they will always explore the expansion option to see if they can meet demand and continue to be viable.

So, you don't want overcrowded trains? Then put the price up - or issue ration coupons (seat reservations) for each train. Or close the gate to new passengers when the train is full, the queue is then not on the platform.

(There is always the possibility of increasing the capacity of the infrastructure and trains - but this also has to be affordable to both the funders and the users. And there is always the chance that in a few years one will be back to the original situation).

Whilst I agree that the cost to funder and user must be acceptable (and in reality the two are the same), there is a bigger picture to consider. Transport, the ability to move people from their homes to their places of work is key to a successful economy. The longer and worse condition-wise the commute of the workers is, the greater the risk to productivity. Standing on an overcrowded train for any length of time can be a pain, but the longer the standing commute the more stressful it becomes. Too often this factor is overlooked, our transport network isn’t just another industry, it is a key element of our economy and as such we can never stop looking for ways to improve it to reduce overcrowding and transit times wherever we possibly can. And this means even if investment from the Treasury is at a net loss to revenue returns directly from the operators, the gains can be made elsewhere as UK companies can become more productive and therefore more successful, generating more profits and of course taxes back to the Treasury. Investment in our transport network should not be considered a burden, it should be considered an investment in our business, our workforce and ultimately our economy.

It is clear that this analysis does not address the reasons for the demand in the first place. Suffice it to say that it's a problem that affects all 'post-subsistence agriculture' societies - that is, urban societies. When people gather together to get things done then there will be a demand for transport to get them there and back again as there will not be enough room in any given area for both work places and housing.

At best, the conditions will be 'acceptable', and people will complain...

As with many industrialised nations, over the centuries we compacted industry into urban centres allowing for workers to live close to their places of employment and reducing travel time. However as our economy has reshaped, and we are now primarily a service sector economy this is no longer necessarily true. The notion that all business, particularly in the financial sector needs to be concentrated into one area is outdated, and carries risk. Given the availability of office space & brown field sites in or close to many towns and cities, there is no reason that in time this concentration of employment could not be redistributed, not only to relive pressure on the capital and major cities, but open up employment and skilling opportunities to many people who would otherwise not have it. Of course this in the first instance needs successive governments to commit to the principle, and help businesses along with initiatives to encourage them to spread out. And it will also need some commitment to investment in those areas being redeveloped for this purpose, including transport infrastructure.

 

[bramling]

I keep reading all these negative stories about rail in the North, but is it really all that bad?

The Pacers are going, Northern and TPE are getting new trains, we're getting lots of new services under "Northern Connect" and over on the east side of the Pennines we're getting new stock on VTEC services.

Yes, I know TPE services are permanently busy, but is Leeds to Manchester in 55 minutes so bad, given the topography of the route? Is that any worse than most other places outside the South East? Look at Bristol to Cardiff - it's no better. 2 trains an hour and one of them is generally a 150. Leeds to Manchester has 2 routes with a total of 8 trains per hour if I'm not mistaken, at present.

From where I live in Wakefield, I can catch 8 trains an hour to Leeds, in as little as 15 minutes. Sheffield on the fastest train is about 25 minutes away, and Doncaster is as little as 15 minutes away. However, TPE routes aren't as fast and yes they could be faster, but the area of improvement I think we need, certainly in the "Metro" area is later trains. I'd rather have later trains from Leeds than the opportunity to get to Manchester 10 minutes earlier.

As for London trains, well, I have 2 per hour on VTEC and the odd one on GC. I have before travelled down to London and been in Ilford (East London) on a Saturday an hour before most shops open, eating a McDonald's breakfast, which I'm partly ashamed to say I love.

More trains are needed and newer stock, but it's on its way and personally I don't think rail travel up here is that bad at all.

In my experience, the answer to the question is no.

The two main gripes seem to be overcrowding and old trains. Whilst I don't dispute there are places in the north where it's possible to experience heavy peak overcrowding, with exceptions I still don't think it's as bad as in the London area. Yes the 17XX out of a major city may be filled to bursting point for the first couple of stops, or maybe a little further on somewhere like the Bolton corridor, but I'd still say people are standing for much shorter distances than in the London area. "Rush hour" in the north is still roughly 1700-1800, whereas in the south east we're now talking about 1530-1930, with many trains still crowded either side of that. Same in the morning, where in the London area it's now quite easy to find full trains as early as 0600.

What I'd say is worse in the north is off-peak overcrowding, especially that associated with events. This is less of an issue in the London area as there is more stock available from the peaks to provide longer off-peak trains across the board, plus the generally longer lengths can absorb fluctuations in demand that little bit better. It's still possible to find heavily overcrowded off-peak trains in the London area at times though.

As for the age of rolling stock, I confess to getting a little tired of hearing about this. My local line in the London area still has trains dating from the mid 1970s, and until recently all the rolling stock dated from BR days. As long as stock is reliable and well maintained I really don't see the issue. I do agree however that some of Northern's rolling stock could and should be presented better.

On balance, given the constraints of financial viability, I feel the north's rail service isn't bad at all. Not perfect by any means, but not nearly as bad as some make out.

 

[Moonshot]

In my experience, the answer to the question is no.

The two main gripes seem to be overcrowding and old trains. Whilst I don't dispute there are places in the north where it's possible to experience heavy peak overcrowding, with exceptions I still don't think it's as bad as in the London area. Yes the 17XX out of a major city may be filled to bursting point for the first couple of stops, or maybe a little further on somewhere like the Bolton corridor, but I'd still say people are standing for much shorter distances than in the London area. "Rush hour" in the north is still roughly 1700-1800, whereas in the south east we're now talking about 1530-1930, with many trains still crowded either side of that. Same in the morning, where in the London area it's now quite easy to find full trains as early as 0600.

What I'd say is worse in the north is off-peak overcrowding, especially that associated with events. This is less of an issue in the London area as there is more stock available from the peaks to provide longer off-peak trains across the board, plus the generally longer lengths can absorb fluctuations in demand that little bit better. It's still possible to find heavily overcrowded off-peak trains in the London area at times though.

As for the age of rolling stock, I confess to getting a little tired of hearing about this. My local line in the London area still has trains dating from the mid 1970s, and until recently all the rolling stock dated from BR days. As long as stock is reliable and well maintained I really don't see the issue. I do agree however that some of Northern's rolling stock could and should be presented better.

On balance, given the constraints of financial viability, I feel the north's rail service isn't bad at all. Not perfect by any means, but not nearly as bad as some make out.

This post probably sums up the whole thing.

 

[Bantamzen]

This post probably sums up the whole thing.

Sorry I must have missed something there, what exactly does it sum up? That London has bigger problems than the North? Well indeed it does, but this isn't a North vs South/London debate.

If you mean that the North's service isn't as bad as it is made out, then for parts of the network I would strongly disagree. Things have got better, and will become more so but this doesn't mean the problems will go away. What it will probably mean is that more people will take up the extra capacity as it comes on line (this has certainly been the case with the recent cascades & additional services Northern / TPE have provided), and that the problems of 2017 will still remain in 2020. There are many contributions from many posters on this thread that detail the issues and why investment cannot simply stop because some don't think things are as bad as they are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This post probably sums up the whole thing.

It doesn't necessarily, though. People have this impression of every train full and standing on London commuter services, and this just isn't true. I have a near 100% record of a seat when commuting. You just have to avoid the odd overcrowded train.

What's significant about the North's crowding problem is that (on TPE at least) it seems to exist at most times of day.