Northern timetable plan for May 2018

[lejog]

I'm surprised that Northern aren't joining the two Northwich line stoppers onto the two CLC Liverpool line stoppers. Apart from freeing up platforms in the main station at Piccadilly it would also get rid of the bottleneck at Oxford Road of trains crossing from platform 5 over to the down line towards Deansgate.

The platform 5 issue at Oxford Road seems to be the one big bottleneck still unresolved in this area, so why not run them through to Piccadilly and then on towards Stockport and Northwich? The two services seem the best to join together, given that running towards Guide Bridge would mean crossing the Piccadilly throat and running to Buxton would limit the traction availability to just Sprinters (because of 142s not fitting with the tunnel dimensions).

For exactly the same reason that there won't be a hourly Bolton to London service, the Castlefield corridor will be full to capacity with 12tph from May 18. If there are any spare paths in future, Northern's priority is to run a Blackburn to Manchester Airport service via the Todmorden Curve, as described in the franchise specification.

 

[pemma]

Problem is, both services are quite constrained timetable wise.

The CLC stoppers have to fit exactly between the TPE/EMT fasts on the route. A stopper leaves Liverpool just behind one fast and even with skip-stopping gets to Oxford Rd just in front of the next one.

The fasts are themselves fairly constrained by timings elsewhere so are basically in the same paths they've been in since the mid-1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chester line timings are constrained by the single lines at Navvy Rd and through Cheadle Heath, as well as paths to 'turn right' at Edgeley No..1 Jn that are few and far between. And to get from 13/14 to the Up lines towards Stockport involves a crossing move at Slade Lane...only to cross back again at Edgeley.

Would be a tricky one to path, for no particular benefit in through demand.

There also could be an issue with capacity on trains with some services having far too many seats and others having too few, unless you attach and detach units at Manchester, which in itself might cause issues on a through service.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Problem is, both services are quite constrained timetable wise.

The CLC stoppers have to fit exactly between the TPE/EMT fasts on the route. A stopper leaves Liverpool just behind one fast and even with skip-stopping gets to Oxford Rd just in front of the next one.

The fasts are themselves fairly constrained by timings elsewhere so are basically in the same paths they've been in since the mid-1990s.

Meanwhile, the Chester line timings are constrained by the single lines at Navvy Rd and through Cheadle Heath, as well as paths to 'turn right' at Edgeley No..1 Jn that are few and far between. And to get from 13/14 to the Up lines towards Stockport involves a crossing move at Slade Lane...only to cross back again at Edgeley.

Would be a tricky one to path, for no particular benefit in through demand.

And of course you would ideally need to put a lengthy recovery / dwell in somewhere, most likely Stockport or Manchester Oxford Road, or else you end with situations where if your northbound is 5 late at Northwich you know you're going to end up causing the EMT to be 3 late at Lime Street and similar; and your performance takes a hit for however long and however much as a result.

Services such as the CLC stoppers and certain branchlines are so tight they are best kept as stand alones!

 

[lejog]

There also could be an issue with capacity on trains with some services having far too many seats and others having too few, unless you attach and detach units at Manchester, which in itself might cause issues on a through service.

Well, yes Northern/TPE are obviously hoping that the changes that Northern are paying for at Piccadilly platforms 13/14 will improve dwell times, and are certainly not going to increase them. After Network Rail's opposition to the ATW service being extended to the Airport, it appears from the ORR submission that the companies have done rather a lot of preparation this time.

Working with colleagues from TPE and Network Rail, significant advance planning work was undertaken prior to the submission of ARN’s May 2018 timetable bid
. As part of this process, performance modelling of the Manchester area was undertaken. This area was prioritised due to the fundamental change brought about by the delivery of the Northern Hub infrastructure. The modelling has been and continues to go through many iterations with emerging conclusions feeding back into the ongoing timetable development. The current modelling outputs indicate that while the changes to the infrastructure and resultant timetable changes affect the way the railway operates and the location of pinch-points, overall there is a broadly neutral performance impact. This analysis does not factor in benefits from complementary changes in platform layout and management, changes in passenger behaviour or improved operational delivery and contingency arrangements, which it is anticipated will support performance improvement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know how the new diagramming will work but certain Hazel Grove and Chester services have to be Sprinters now as they are part of the same diagrams as Buxton services.

Or 769s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If I have read this right, the Liverpool-Blackpool service will not extend to Liverpool South Parkway.
It says this is in anticipation of a Liverpool-Chester service via the Halton Curve (otherwise not mentioned).
There also seems to be a one-off Liverpool-Ellesmere Port service via Earlestown, presumably a positioning move for the peak Ellesmere Port-Leeds service.
Oddly, the new Chester/Ellesmere Port-Calder Valley-Leeds service is included under "West and North Yorks Interurban" in the application.

At first sight there seems to be a lot of "diesels under the wires" operation in the north-west (eg Barrow-Airport), but I suppose that depends on how the 769s are deployed.

 

[scrapy]

If I have read this right, the Liverpool-Blackpool service will not extend to Liverpool South Parkway.
It says this is in anticipation of a Liverpool-Chester service via the Halton Curve (otherwise not mentioned).
There also seems to be a one-off Liverpool-Ellesmere Port service via Earlestown, presumably a positioning move for the peak Ellesmere Port-Leeds service.
Oddly, the new Chester/Ellesmere Port-Calder Valley-Leeds service is included under "West and North Yorks Interurban" in the application.

At first sight there seems to be a lot of "diesels under the wires" operation in the north-west (eg Barrow-Airport), but I suppose that depends on how the 769s are deployed.

Blackpool to South Parkway being cut back to Lime St is probably also down to the fact that they often have less than 10 people on between Lime St and South Pway. They would have been more useful if they could have ran all stops allowing a CLC stopper to be sped up to give the stations between Warrington and Manchester with a 2 hourly services an hourly one.

 

[pemma]

Or 769s.

What relevance do 769s have to the current diagramming?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What relevance do 769s have to the current diagramming?

They don't, I thought it was future diagramming that was being discussed.

 

[Philip]

It seems like combining the CLC stoppers for Liverpool and Chester isn't a good idea for the reasons stated, but nonetheless the issue of platform 5 at Oxford Road still remains and yes it is a potential bottleneck, having been delayed at Deansgate more than once whilst waiting for a CLC Liverpool stopper to cross over from platform 5 to the down line. How do you solve it? Would running them into platforms 1 or 3 improve things at all?

On the subject of 769s, surely these would also be suitable for Barrow services along with Windermere? If so then it would free up more 195s to strengthen the all-diesel routes.

 

[Starmill]

For exactly the same reason that there won't be a Bolton to London service, the Castlefield corridor will be full to capacity with 12tph from May 18.

How many times does this need to be said?

This is only true during the daytime. It's unlikely that a through service to London Euston would run at these times.

 

[pemma]

It seems like combining the CLC stoppers for Liverpool and Chester isn't a good idea for the reasons stated, but nonetheless the issue of platform 5 at Oxford Road still remains and yes it is a potential bottleneck, having been delayed at Deansgate more than once whilst waiting for a CLC Liverpool stopper to cross over from platform 5 to the down line. How do you solve it? Would running them into platforms 1 or 3 improve things at all?

On the subject of 769s, surely these would also be suitable for Barrow services along with Windermere? If so then it would free up more 195s to strengthen the all-diesel routes.

769s won't be used on Northern Connect services. 769s will only be used on Windermere services until 2019. It sounds like if they remain with Northern after that Southport is currently the most likely place they will go.

 

[lejog]

How many times does this need to be said?

This is only true during the daytime. It's unlikely that a through service to London Euston would run at these times.

And I was responding to a poster who had been proposing an hourly service from Bolton to London, but I've edited my post to make that clear.

Anyway how many fewer services will there be in the mornings and evenings, given the franchise requirements for early arrivals at Manchester Airport? For example the Calder Valley service had a requirement for a pre 6a.m. arrival and will have 18 trains a day according to the consultation documents, so is certainly a morning through to night service. It seems that all the Northern services through Platforms 13/14 will have 17-20 tpd. I suppose the Scotland TPE services may not run early mornings to the Airport or evening from the Airport, so may free a path.

 

[pemma]

Windermere and Barrow combined only come to something like 12tpd.

 

[lejog]

Windermere and Barrow combined only come to something like 12tpd.

Service Group ED11 Lancashire and Cumbria Interurban shows the following weekday services:

Barrow to Airport via Wigan 10tpd, via Bolton 2tpd
Windermere to Airport via Wigan 4tpd, via Bolton 1tpd

 

[pemma]

Still that's only something like 7am to 9pm, unless the gaps between some services are longer than 60 mins.

 

[lejog]

Still that's only something like 7am to 9pm, unless the gaps between some services are longer than 60 mins.

???? 17 tpd at an hourly interval cover a 16 hour time period, not a 14 hour time period.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Barrow to Airport via Wigan 10tpd, via Bolton 2tpd
Windermere to Airport via Wigan 4tpd, via Bolton 1tpd

That split makes no sense to me. A consistent timetable with all running one way would be more sensible.

 

[thealexweb]

That split makes no sense to me. A consistent timetable with all running one way would be more sensible.

Peak time extra's using spare paths through Bolton?

 

[lejog]

And I was responding to a poster who had been proposing an hourly service from Bolton to London, but I've edited my post to make that clear.

Anyway how many fewer services will there be in the mornings and evenings, given the franchise requirements for early arrivals at Manchester Airport? For example the Calder Valley service had a requirement for a pre 6a.m. arrival and will have 18 trains a day according to the consultation documents, so is certainly a morning through to night service. It seems that all the Northern services through Platforms 13/14 will have 17-20 tpd. I suppose the Scotland TPE services may not run early mornings to the Airport or evening from the Airport, so may free a path.

Replying to my own post, I know, but it also appears from the old December 2017 TPE ORR submission that TPE are applying for an increase in Scotland to Airport paths to 18tpd (9 Edinburgh, 8 Glasgow, 1 Preston) in the new timetable.

 

[pemma]

???? 17 tpd at an hourly interval cover a 16 hour time period, not a 14 hour time period.

I misread it as 14 services in total with some of them via Bolton.

 

[Moonshot]

Have TPE posted their timetable for 2018?

 

[Philip]

Looking back at the early pages in this thread and the proposals, it seems to me the timetable across Greater Manchester and the surrounding area is on a cliff edge with the potential for things to go very wrong very quickly and without much provocation. An example is the new Blackpool to Macclesfield service being booked to arrive there only 2 minutes before the Cross Country is due in. It's a long route and it crosses several bottlenecks on the way, so the chance of delay seems probable and that would then immediately delay the Cross Country and the domino effect starts.

There are other examples in there too but that was one that stuck out. Just wondering if the whole thing could turn into a disaster with the DfT/Northern biting off more than they can chew? Perhaps a better idea would've been fewer services and more coaches on the existing ones...

 

[Starmill]

Does anyone know why Northern didn't do any public consultation at all on their 2018 timetable? SWR managed to mobilise theirs in a far shorter timescale. A siginficant amount of what's happening is new information that has never been publicly released and is very different to what was specified in the Invitiation to Tender (which is the last chance that the public had to make comments on the proposals).

 

[notlob.divad]

It seems like combining the CLC stoppers for Liverpool and Chester isn't a good idea for the reasons stated, but nonetheless the issue of platform 5 at Oxford Road still remains and yes it is a potential bottleneck, having been delayed at Deansgate more than once whilst waiting for a CLC Liverpool stopper to cross over from platform 5 to the down line. How do you solve it? Would running them into platforms 1 or 3 improve things at all?

I saw a post that said some CLC trains will terminate in the through platform on th eSouth side (platform 1?) as the Calder Valley service which was currently only going as far as Oxford Road and would terminate and wait in the Platform 5 bay. So it may be that what you suggest is the plan.

 

[pemma]

Does anyone know why Northern didn't do any public consultation at all on their 2018 timetable? SWR managed to mobilise theirs in a far shorter timescale. A siginficant amount of what's happening is new information that has never been publicly released and is very different to what was specified in the Invitiation to Tender (which is the last chance that the public had to make comments on the proposals).

Possibly because there's no requirement for them to do so?

The ITT was published after the public consultation closed, although some RUGs and local authorities meet with the bidders to discuss how the requirements could be best met. Remember a lot of the requirements were different to what people presumed they would be e.g. there was no requirement for Hazel Grove to Preston to continue but a lot of people presumed it would continue.

 

[pemma]

An example is the new Blackpool to Macclesfield service being booked to arrive there only 2 minutes before the Cross Country is due in.

Has any change been made to that as a result of the 'stakeholder' consultation? I seem to recall a mention that in one direction the Macclesfield service would stop at all stations between Stockport and Macclesfield and in the other direction it would be the Stoke service, which is something TfGM were unhappy about.

 

[pemma]

Peak time extra's using spare paths through Bolton?

There was some mention of TfGM requesting that Northern ran peak time services via Bolton, given TPE Scotland to Manchester Airport don't have to carry local passengers between Bolton and Manchester/Man Airport.

 

[scrapy]

Has any change been made to that as a result of the 'stakeholder' consultation? I seem to recall a mention that in one direction the Macclesfield service would stop at all stations between Stockport and Macclesfield and in the other direction it would be the Stoke service, which is something TfGM were unhappy about.

No the Macclesfield were always intended to skip Prestbury and Adlington with the Stokes all stops. Changes have been made to the Hazel Grove, New Mills Newtown and Buxton services because they didn't meet service requirements.

TFGM wanted same services to stop at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme in both directions although that orignally would have created an unbalanced service frequency at these stations. Northern wanted to run some Hazel Grove services fast from Stockport and have some Stoke and Crewe trains stopping Northbound instead which worked operationally over Edgeley junction but meant already full trains would be stopping with empty ones flying through.

 

[Starmill]

Possibly because there's no requirement for them to do so?

The ITT was published after the public consultation closed, although some RUGs and local authorities meet with the bidders to discuss how the requirements could be best met. Remember a lot of the requirements were different to what people presumed they would be e.g. there was no requirement for Hazel Grove to Preston to continue but a lot of people presumed it would continue.

I think you may have misunderstood. I know the ITT was published after the public consultation was closed. It has been 3 years since then though and many things aren't the same as they were when the ITT was written. Just because there's no obligation to consult on the final plan does that mean it isn't a good idea?