May 2019 timetable changes

[Bikeman78]

None of the GA enhancements due to happen in May will now happen. The only exception is two additional services each way between Norwich & Liverpool St in 90mins (56mins from Ipswich) which hopefully will be operated by x2 755 bimode units obviously with no 1st class or catering.

What times are these likely to run? It would be strange to use standard only units on peak time trains.

 

[northwichcat]

Currently they take 40 minutes non stop from Preston to Piccadilly non stop via Eccles. It will be hard to beat that via Bolton so it's pontless going that way if they aren't going to stop.

The idea is they'll normally stop at Bolton but will have pick up and set down restrictions to try to prevent local traffic using the Scottish service.

 

[northwichcat]

The level crossing in Hale is on the main shopping street in the centre of the village, near several large schools. In the Mon-Fri morning peak, when there are already 2tphpd, kids on their way to school run/cycle across the crossing as the barriers are coming down.

Plus there's freight timed to go through Hale at 07:50 and 08:03, while there's no freight timed to go through between 14:56 and 16:54 so additional services around school/college finishing times should be less of an issue than the existing additional morning peak services.

 

[dk1]

What times are these likely to run? It would be strange to use standard only units on peak time trains.

Nothing released yet apart from there will be two each way.

 

[thealexweb]

Currently they take 40 minutes non stop from Preston to Piccadilly non stop via Eccles. It will be hard to beat that via Bolton so it's pontless going that way if they aren't going to stop.

This is very common misconception on this forum. On 2013 infrastructure a Class 185 took on average two minutes longer via Eccles.

Simply put, the Eccles route is longer and slower then and now. Post-electrification and 100mph Bolton running the time differential will only grow.

 

[Mathew S]

This is very common misconception on this forum. On 2013 infrastructure a Class 185 took on average two minutes longer via Eccles.

Simply put, the Eccles route is longer and slower then and now. Post-electrification and 100mph Bolton running the time differential will only grow.

The Bolton route is faster than via Eccles because of the 20mph section through Golborne and Parkside junctions. Unless these junctions are remodelled, it will always be quicker via Bolton.

 

[bramling]

The Bolton route is faster than via Eccles because of the 20mph section through Golborne and Parkside junctions. Unless these junctions are remodelled, it will always be quicker via Bolton.

Presumably there’s less chance of getting delayed due to being stuck behind a stopping service on the Chat Moss route though?

 

[Mathew S]

Presumably there’s less chance of getting delayed due to being stuck behind a stopping service on the Chat Moss route though?

You'd think so. There's difficulties finding paths on the WCML that match with paths over Chat Moss though, so services are often delayed waiting for a path out of the junction.

 

[BMIFlyer]

When the 100mph limit is activated on the Bolton line, the TPE service will run that way.

It is still being decided however if we will stop at Bolton. There are pro's and con's as to if we should. IF we do, it will certainly be pick up / set down only.

 

[323235]

Yet Northern have submitted a new application to Network Rail again requesting to run Greenbank-Manchester and to extend the peak time Stockport only services to Manchester.

Blackpool North services will go to Hazel Grove, not Macclesfield with an exception of an 2 daily services from Stoke to Macclesfield in the northbound direction only. However, Sunday services are still set to be Stoke to Blackpool (15 services in each direction.) Also, for the benefit of @agbrs_Jack there is a request to run an additional service to Congleton and Stoke in the evening peak, as well as one additional off-peak service.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...on-operating-companies/sale-of-access-rights/

Whilst I can understand the frustration with the changes to peak services on the Stoke line, from what I have seen based on the curtailment of the 1721 at Macclesfield with the current calling pattern, is that it has actually done a bit of good in loading terms, as it has dedicated more capacity to Stockport - Macclesfield section and has also made the 1746 significantly busier South of Macclesfield.

I do think we must not add extra services for the sake of it without a focus on filling and redistributing loadings on current services.

That's one thing that strikes me about the second northern train per hour off peak to Macclesfield, that was previously planned. Daytime services carry around a lot of fresh air.

We must focus on the capacity that is warranted and needed.

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst I can understand the frustration with the changes to peak services on the Stoke line, from what I have seen based on the curtailment of the 1721 at Macclesfield with the current calling pattern, is that it has actually done a bit of good in loading terms, as it has dedicated more capacity to Stockport - Macclesfield section and has also made the 1746 significantly busier South of Macclesfield.

I do think we must not add extra services for the sake of it without a focus on filling and redistributing loadings on current services.

That's one thing that strikes me about the second northern train per hour off peak to Macclesfield, that was previously planned. Daytime services carry around a lot of fresh air.

We must focus on the capacity that is warranted and needed.

I was surprised when I saw 2tph to Macclesfield in the ITT, which seemed to be mainly for the benefit of Bramhall and Poynton by the time Macclesfield has XC and Virgin services to Stockport and Manchester and Cheadle Hulme has plenty of services already.

I've not really seen many Buxton services since the 2tph enhancement but considering station usage for stations between Middlewood and Buxton is less than half of what usage at stations between Navigation Road and Greenbank is and that peak time Buxton services are busier than peak time Mid-Cheshire services, having 2tph to Buxton at off-peak times on weekdays seems unwarranted. Likewise Alderley Edge doesn't need the additional service via Stockport at off-peak times, especially now considering it's usually a 4 car 150 when the 150s could be put to better use on other routes.

On the other hand the Mid-Cheshire peak time extras are an example of how not to do additional services. It's shown people want a direct train to central Manchester and many will re-time their journey so that they travel on direct trains so we end up with overcrowded direct services to Manchester and half empty services which start/terminate at Stockport.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

None of the above performance worries seem to impact the plan for Leeds-Victoria-Chester services, as Castlefield isn't touched.
Presumably it will need a complement of 170/158 units mainly from the Leeds end (and maybe dependent on cascades from Scotrail)?
I imagine a fair bit of route learning will be necessary west of Victoria, unless there is to be a Northern depot at Chester.
TfW crew training has already started for the Chester-Liverpool service, but there's still no clue as to how TfW will source the stock.

We used to have a number of people on here telling us how the Northern Hub would work, and defending the decision to reroute trains via Victoria.
I believe they had a hand in the business case for the Hub and the Ordsall Chord.
They seem to have gone pretty quiet recently.
Meanwhile Network Rail can't seem to fit the current services into the Castlefield corridor reliably, let alone a further uplift.
This seems to be as much a planning/technical failure as the electrification schemes.
Andy Burnham should reflect that his people played a part in that planning, when he lambasts the results.

 

[Class 170101]

More people about at weekends that wouldn't always be about in the day due to school, work. It could push the level crossing risk score up to a point where it triggers something having to be done, which costs money.

Yet Network Rail haven't had any issues with North Wales to Manchester services diverting via Altrincham while engineering works are happening which results in 3tp2h on Sundays during engineering works but seem to have an issue with 2tp2h every Sunday.

I don't think NR worry about that in the grand scheme of things. The assessment probably includes an allowance for it otherwise they would be spending hours refusing all special traffic trains.

 

[Deafdoggie]

So Liverpool to New St two hourly

Will now be Liverpool to Euston via New St once an hour

And Liverpool to Birmingham International once an hour?

O dear this is not what I expected and very disappointed if this is really true. I hope not!

I thought Crew - Euston was going to be extended to Liverpool, running non stop on the direct line between Crew and Stafford. When there was mention of Birmingham I thought than 1tph Liverpool - Birmingham would be scrapped and the carriages used to prove more seats on the above route.

Currently the connections are not possible as both trains arrive at Stafford at the same time, fixing this should be a priority. Simply extending the slow service to Birmingham New Street make it much less appealing in comparison.

I believe the plan is still 2tph Liverpool-Birmingham, one carries on to Euston, the other to International. The current Crewe-Euston will no longer go via Stoke. A new Crewe-Euston via Birmingham will go via Stoke. There was talk of extending this Crewe-Liverpool, but I believe this will no longer happen. Not all of these are new trains of course, as they run in paths of existing trains in many cases, just slightly extended, or two trips joined up. There is, for example, no extra Birmingham-Euston, the new Crewe-Birmingham-Euston is just a current Birminghm-Euston extended to Crewe, which in turn is also in the path of the Wolverhampton-Walsall between Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

 

[87015]

The WMT departures from Euston will be destroying performance with the following pattern. Wait until the combo of fewer platforms available, non-uniform fleet and their complete disinterest in service recovery wreck an already fragile WCML.
1tph Crewe (via Weedon)
1tph Liverpool (semi fast via Northampton and Birmingham)
1tph Rugeley (FL to Ledburn, first stop Leighton then via Northampton)
1tph Crewe (semi-fast via Northampton, Birmingham and Stoke)
2tph Tring

God knows how it got through the NR checks for performance given what they’ve been allegedly been blocking upthread!

 

[Deafdoggie]

The WMT departures from Euston will be destroying performance with the following pattern. Wait until the combo of fewer platforms available, non-uniform fleet and their complete disinterest in service recovery wreck an already fragile WCML.
1tph Crewe (via Weedon)
1tph Liverpool (semi fast via Northampton and Birmingham)
1tph Rugeley (FL to Ledburn, first stop Leighton then via Northampton)
1tph Crewe (semi-fast via Northampton, Birmingham and Stoke)
2tph Tring

God knows how it got through the NR checks for performance given what they’ve been allegedly been blocking upthread!

Are there any actual extra trains?

 

[87015]

Are there any actual extra trains?

Nope, don’t think so. Just fill everything with cheap advances and use the southern WCML as a cash cow and force them to stand.

 

[The Planner]

Which is why nothing will have been looked at in terms of performance.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think NR worry about that in the grand scheme of things. The assessment probably includes an allowance for it otherwise they would be spending hours refusing all special traffic trains.

Network Rail are inconsistent with whether they allow North Wales services to divert via Altrincham. Sunday services are allowed to divert pretty much every time but when Saturday services need to divert sometimes Network Rail say yes and other times they say no.

 

[TheBigD]

Back in Central Trains days a lot of cross Birmingham services were connected, eg Stansted-Birmingham & Birmingham-Liverpool. Performance was lousy, especially east bound due to little turn around time at Birmingham and running just 3 minutes in front of the all stations Wolves-Brum stopper. Similar story on other routes.

I wonder if we will see similar happen with WMT services that are to be connected across Birmingham.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I believe the plan is still 2tph Liverpool-Birmingham, one carries on to Euston, the other to International. The current Crewe-Euston will no longer go via Stoke. A new Crewe-Euston via Birmingham will go via Stoke. There was talk of extending this Crewe-Liverpool, but I believe this will no longer happen. Not all of these are new trains of course, as they run in paths of existing trains in many cases, just slightly extended, or two trips joined up. There is, for example, no extra Birmingham-Euston, the new Crewe-Birmingham-Euston is just a current Birminghm-Euston extended to Crewe, which in turn is also in the path of the Wolverhampton-Walsall between Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

Are there any actual extra trains?

Nope, don’t think so. Just fill everything with cheap advances and use the southern WCML as a cash cow and force them to stand.

The only bit that's actually receiving a new service, rather than joining up existing services, is Crewe-Birmingham, which is gaining an additional slow service via Stoke-on-Trent. Good news for the users of Stoke and Stafford. Very good news for the users of Stone, and (if it stops there) for the users of Penkridge.

The only thing I'm not sure about is when or how exactly they propose to slot it in the Birmingham-Wolverhampton corridor, which is already pretty busy with 9tph off-peak, and hamstrung by being a long double track section without any overtaking loops whatsoever, plus 2tph all-stoppers and a smorgasbord of calls at different stations.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The only thing I'm not sure about is when or how exactly they propose to slot it in the Birmingham-Wolverhampton corridor, which is already pretty busy with 9tph off-peak, and hamstrung by being a long double track section without any overtaking loops whatsoever, plus 2tph all-stoppers and a smorgasbord of calls at different stations.

I believe that’s the path of the current Wolverhampton-Walsall.
The Birmingham-Walsall bit covered by the ‘new’ Euston-Rugely.

 

[delticdave]

What times are these likely to run? It would be strange to use standard only units on peak time trains.

One possible reason is that the 755's will be G.A.'s fastest accelerating trains.....

Their maximum speed is still only 100 mph, (line limit) but with 2600 kW per 3 or 4 car unit (in electric mode....) they might be more able to keep to the timetable.
The 12 car 745's (really 2x6 cars back to back) have 4 rather than 2 motor bogies, so totaling 5200 kW, & will be longer & heavier than the 755
bi-modes, but when compared to the weight & power output of a Cclass 90 + 8/9 Mk.3's they should be capable of Norwich in 90.

 

[vlad]

The only bit that's actually receiving a new service, rather than joining up existing services, is Crewe-Birmingham, which is gaining an additional slow service via Stoke-on-Trent. Good news for the users of Stoke and Stafford. Very good news for the users of Stone, and (if it stops there) for the users of Penkridge.

Why's it good news for Stoke and Stone? It's only gaining a new service to Birmingham by losing the present one to London.

I appreciate if you're of the opinion Wolves/Brum is a preferable destination then of course it's better. I also appreciate the train will still end up in London but given how long it's going to take to get there is it worth it?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Why's it good news for Stoke and Stone? It's only gaining a new service to Birmingham by losing the present one to London.

I appreciate if you're of the opinion Wolves/Brum is a preferable destination then of course it's better. I also appreciate the train will still end up in London but given how long it's going to take to get there is it worth it?

They can change at Stafford and have a train that's just as fast as the existing one. True, not good for those travelling to the Trent Valley or London obviously, however I would be pretty sure that most people from Stone at least (and probably Stoke too) are going to Birmingham.

I think the station that will unquestionably be benefiting from this change is Penkridge. At the moment it has a lopsided timetable with 2tph towards Birmingham but only 1tph from (except for certain peak services). So this is a big improvement (not to mention having a direct service to London finally, even if it's slow).

 

[sash5000]

So why did GA commit to it in Franchise Agreement? And if they cannot deliver on these little improvements what chance the others promised?

Putting financials aside, these improvements probably require capacity at Liverpool Street that Crossrail will provide. Until Crossrail opens I cannot see any improvements.

 

[Deafdoggie]

There has been much local opposition to the Staffordshire changes. The reason it got extended to London was because the residents of Stone complained loudly about the loss of the London service. How much use this slow service will be, and how many will change at Stafford rather than just driving there, remains to be seen. Personally I think it is rather a own goal and will loose custom that has built up. Whilst I realise the need for 8 coach trains, I believe better solutions could have been found. With the footbridge at Stone installed they could build a platform extension, Again, Kidsgrove could get an extension, and Alsager could have work done on moving the signals/track circuit I am sure. Maybe not cheap or easy, but neither is this plan, which involves more trains, and has been heavily delayed-much to the locals relief!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There has been much local opposition to the Staffordshire changes. The reason it got extended to London was because the residents of Stone complained loudly about the loss of the London service. How much use this slow service will be, and how many will change at Stafford rather than just driving there, remains to be seen. Personally I think it is rather a own goal and will loose custom that has built up. Whilst I realise the need for 8 coach trains, I believe better solutions could have been found. With the footbridge at Stone installed they could build a platform extension, Again, Kidsgrove could get an extension, and Alsager could have work done on moving the signals/track circuit I am sure. Maybe not cheap or easy, but neither is this plan, which involves more trains, and has been heavily delayed-much to the locals relief!

I think ultimately this is the least worst option. Yes, they lose their through fast London service, however the money for platform extensions simply isn't there at the moment (and it's probably difficult to make a cost-benefit business case).

 

[Ianno87]

I think ultimately this is the least worst option. Yes, they lose their through fast London service, however the money for platform extensions simply isn't there at the moment (and it's probably difficult to make a cost-benefit business case).

And for Stone passengers, is changing at Stafford for a direct service *really* such an inconvenience?

I bet more people benefit every day from a direct Birmingham service insteas.

 

[g22]

Some May 19 GWR and Transport for Wales services seem to have made it onto Real Time Trains (plus all the usual stuff about it not necessarily being correct at this stage).