Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Andyh82]

Extend one (or both) of the Blackburn-Rochdale services back to Blackburn via Todmorden.

Make both Wigan/Atherton services continue as Calder Valley stoppers to Leeds

These relatively small changes allow for an extra Calder Valley service (Bradford gets 3 hourly to Manchester) and makes the service pattern more consistent, whilst keeping the 6ph to Rochdale.

Switch 1x Airport service to the Calder Valley and 1x Chester service to TPE.

This is where it gets a bit more controversial and disrupts the half-hourly service pattern, but I think it would be worth it as it offers some big benefits. - Chester gains a fast service to Leeds (and beyond) as ‘compensation’ for losing the Airport link. This could even be extended to North Wales.
- Bradford, Rochdale and the Calder Valley gain a long promised Airport service.
- Huddersfield gains a service to Warrington and Chester, although drops down to 1x hourly to the airport.

I like some of these ideas. One point about extending both Atherton services to Leeds is that one would run via Brighouse, so they wouldn’t be too consistent and might not allow an equal 2ph spacing

Running the Huddersfield stopper to Wakefield and Castleford is a good idea as well. This would solve some of the platforming issues at Huddersfield, as they both currently occupy Platform 4 for long periods.

If it is decided to run two per hour via the Ordsall Curve, it might make sense to run one Calder Valley and one TPE, rather than two TPEs. As long as they actually run it once an hour, and don’t terminate it at Victoria at the drop of a hat, an hourly service to the Airport from York, Leeds and Huddersfield is a decent service in anyone’s book.

Running the Chester as a TPE would also reinstate the link to Warrington, although I’m not entirely sure how fast the Chester service is west of Manchester, is it ‘all shacks’?. Running occasional ones into North Wales would be one of those nice to haves, also mitigate the existing TfW service running a longer way into Manchester as per Plan 3.

 

[northernchris]

One point about extending both Atherton services to Leeds is that one would run via Brighouse, so they wouldn’t be too consistent and might not allow an equal 2ph spacing

This is the proposal in option A, and is the only one that retains 3 trains per hour on the Atherton line. If they retained 3 per hour it should be possible to have 2 at 30 minutes apart, say Blackburn - Kirkby and Wigan - Brighouse - Leeds, with the via Bradford service slotted in around

 

[peters]

There is now an update from Greater Manchester Combined Authority on their proposed alternative, which is a mixture of options B and C:

Elements of Option C support the needs of GM and must be retained:
 Improved links from Calder Valley across Manchester Victoria to Warrington and Chester, running at 2tph;
 2tph all day at Greenfield and Mossley stations;
 2tph links for Stalybridge and Ashton beyond Manchester Victoria to Bolton and Wigan;
 New semi-fast linkage from Stockport to Knutsford, Northwich, Chester and beyond to North Wales coast (this was a feature of the original Northern Hub plan);
 2tph southwards from the airport to Wilmslow and Crewe;
 New semi-fast calls at the larger stations on the Warrington central line (Irlam and Urmston);
 New fast linkage Wigan North Western to Hazel Grove across Manchester maintaining a link from Wigan to the Castlefield corridor stations;
 New semi-fast service from Southport via the Atherton line to the Castlefield corridor;
 A regular interval clockface service offer from Manchester Victoria to Wigan via both routes;
 A much more regularised service from Bolton to both Victoria and the Castlefield corridor, including full service calls at Bolton on the TP Scotland-Airport service and a new Bolton-Cumbria link; and
 New 2tph all day calls at intermediate stations between Bolton and Salford Crescent.

However elements of Option C need adapting to take account of key passenger flows or it would cause performance problems when implemented in reality.
 Option C Wigan North Western to Hazel Grove service provided all day, to stop at Golborne station once open;
 Option C peak extra Southport-Atherton line-Manchester Oxford Road provided all day, and if possible extended to Manchester Airport, retaining the stopping patterns on this service as presented in the Option C peak service with the addition of a stop at Swinton;
 Replacing the Southport-Stalybridge service via the Westhoughton line by a Wigan Wallgate to Stalybridge service;
 Option C Liverpool-Chat Moss-Manchester Oxford Road service extended onto Manchester Airport as per Option B;
 Crewe line possibility of switching the Option C Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe 2tph and Piccadilly-Stockport-Alderley Edge 2tph to having 1tph covering each of Piccadilly-Airport-Crewe, Piccadilly-Airport-Alderley Edge, Piccadilly-Stockport-Crewe and Piccadilly Stockport-Alderley Edge;
 Styal line extra 1tph calls at each of Heald Green and Gatley;
 Extra calls placed on semi-fast services on CLC line at Flixton;
 Option C semi-fast train calls at Buckshaw Parkway and Chorley extended to include Horwich Parkway all day; and
 Littleborough increased service level to 3tph all day.

Appendix G of this document goes into more detail about how they have come to those decisions: https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s13691/05 GMTC MRN 20210319 - Local Rail Service Performance.pdf

Despite it being a mix of C and B, their analysis shows option A is the second best option for Greater Manchester. However, they've only considered Greater Manchester stations so option A gets points for an improved Hazel Grove service, it doesn't appear to lose points for the Buxton service being cutback.

Many people were suggesting a mix of options and while this isn't the confirmed outcome it's not going to be a response DfT can easily dismiss without good reasons.

I guess their proposed alternative for the Crewe line will go down well as it won't mean Sandbach/Chelford/Holmes Chapel passengers have to change at Wilmslow for Stockport but I guess the timetable might not be as clockface as a result.

The one slight problem with their proposal is it leaves TPE short of an airport path through Castlefield to enable all day Southport to Oxford Road and Wigan to Hazel Grove services, opposed to just peak time Newcastle TPE services terminating at Victoria.

 

[Greybeard33]

One issue with the GMCA proposal is that it increases the off peak paths through Castlefield to 12tph, versus 11tph in Options B and C.

This would surely reduce the performance benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I'm reading that correctly, Southport would drop to 1tph to Castlefield only? Or did they mean cutting one of the Southport to Stalybridge services back to Wigan?

 

[peters]

If I'm reading that correctly, Southport would drop to 1tph to Castlefield only? Or did they mean cutting one of the Southport to Stalybridge services back to Wigan?

No. Explained in further detail in the same document

Given the proposal above for an all-day provision of the Southport semi-fast service via Atherton to Manchester Oxford Road, it would be hard to then justify the continuation (under Option C) for 2tph Southport-Stalybridge via Wigan and Bolton. The level of demand on the section of route between Southport and Wigan is very unlikely to support 3tph all day, so instead our proposal is for one of the option C services to start from Wigan Wallgate to Stalybridge

 

[TheSel]

If I'm reading that correctly, Southport would drop to 1tph to Castlefield only? Or did they mean cutting one of the Southport to Stalybridge services back to Wigan?

Deleted.

Sorry - already answered in post #818 above.

 

[nr758123]

Many people were suggesting a mix of options and while this isn't the confirmed outcome it's not going to be a response DfT can easily dismiss without good reasons.

Dismissing things without good reason is what the DfT does best.

 

[Glenn1969]

I still think they will go for Option A because it involves the least change to the status quo

 

[Ianno87]

Dismissing things without good reason is what the DfT does best.

Or trying to please everybody without making any difficult decisions.

I still think they will go for Option A because it involves the least change to the status quo

Case in point.

 

[Greybeard33]

Eddie Muraszko, Deputy Director, Midlands, North & Wales, who is the DfT representative on the Recovery Task Force, gave a verbal update to the 19 July virtual meeting of the Metrolink and Rail Subcommittee of the Greater Manchester Transport Committee on progress with the consultation. 800-900 responses were received from local transport authorities, user groups and members of the public, many of them positive and high quality and are now being analysed.

The next stage is for the Task Force to refine the Options, based on further work on the details and deliverability, and to consider modifications that take account of the consultation responses. The Task Force will then make a recommendation, firstly to the TfN Rail North Committee and then to the DfT, on which option should be progressed, any changes from the consulted version, and the implementation timescale. After that the TOCs and NR will develop the new timetable in detail and each TOC will carry out consultations with its stakeholders as normal for a timetable recast. No final decisions have yet been taken, except that it is definitely not an option to go back to the unreliable pre-Covid timetable.

Eddie said that the target of the May 2022 timetable change is "ambitious" and dependent to some extent on which option was chosen, because of differences in driver route training requirements and possible dependency on the timing of TOC rolling stock cascades (? - he did not elaborate on the rolling stock aspect). However, the December 2022 timetable change date will certainly be achieved.

Caroline Whittam, Head of Rail Franchising, TfGM, said she had received a lot of positive feedback from user groups and other stakeholders on the GMCA counter proposal described in post #815.

 

[Rail Ranger]

The meeting took place today, 19th March.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

However, the December 2020 timetable change date will certainly be achieved.

I assume a typo for 'December 2022'?

 

[Glenn1969]

All of which still makes me think they will take the easy option of going for Option A, the least change approach

 

[Greybeard33]

I assume a typo for 'December 2022'?

Thanks. Now corrected.

 

[Ianno87]

All of which still makes me think they will take the easy option of going for Option A, the least change approach

Involves the least amount of "You're taking away my direct train from X to Y"

 

[Greybeard33]

Involves the least amount of "You're taking away my direct train from X to Y"

Although Option A gives the least performance benefit. 12tph off peak, 13tph peak through Castlefield Junction, versus 14tph off peak, 15tph peak in the baseline.

Options B and C have 11tph off peak, 13tph peak.

 

[Ianno87]

Although Option A gives the least performance benefit. 12tph off peak, 13tph peak through Castlefield Junction, versus 14tph off peak, 15tph peak in the baseline.

Options B and C have 11tph off peak, 13tph peak.

Yes. I fear the politics of pleasing everybody will trump a golden opportunity to recast into the service patterns that deliver better performance, and deliver new, better connections that benefit more people overall.

 

[peters]

800-900 responses were received from local transport authorities, user groups and members of the public, many of them positive and high quality and are now being analysed.

No final decisions have yet been taken, except that it is definitely not an option to go back to the unreliable pre-Covid timetable.

I'm guessing at this stage we don't know which option was preferred and which proposals had most and least support.

Eddie said that the target of the May 2022 timetable change is "ambitious" and dependent to some extent on which option was chosen, because of differences in driver route training requirements and possible dependency on the timing of TOC rolling stock cascades (? - he did not elaborate on the rolling stock aspect). However, the December 2022 timetable change date will certainly be achieved.

Presumably it'll be an all-or-nothing, as paths to the airport need to be coordinated with paths to Stockport and then trains going that way are coming from different directions and those trains need to be coordinated with trains terminating at Oxford Road and trains going to Victoria.

Caroline Whittam, Head of Rail Franchising, TfGM, said she had received a lot of positive feedback from user groups and other stakeholders on the GMCA counter proposal described in post #815.

Perhaps the question to ask is if Network Rail say it's Southport to Oxford Road or Wigan to Hazel Grove not both, are TfGM prepared to say which one would take priority?

All of which still makes me think they will take the easy option of going for Option A, the least change approach

Involves the least amount of "You're taking away my direct train from X to Y"

Option A will remove direct links to Oxford Rd/Piccadilly from Southport and North Wales and as @Greybeard33 says they'll be more services through Oxford Road in option A so it's not as easy for a modified option A to alleviate those concerns.

Presumably option A will affect the timings of services on lines which aren't down to get improvements as well e.g. half-hourly Blackpool to Hazel Grove could affect the times of other services through Bolton or Stockport. Passengers on other routes might complain if the train they use for their commute gets moved from an hourly arrival at twenty past the hour, to an hourly arrival at 5 past the hour i.e. having to arrive at 08:05 for a 9am start, especially if it's to accommodate an improvement on another route.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm guessing at this stage we don't know which option was preferred and which proposals had most and least support.

The DfT rep did say the recommendation would not be based on a popularity contest or counting votes for each option. He recognised that, in developing the GMCA response, TfGM had taken the trouble to consolidate the views of authorities across the city region who might otherwise have responded individually. The Task Force would give that due weight.

 

[peters]

The DfT rep did say the recommendation would not be based on a popularity contest or counting votes for each option. He recognised that, in developing the GMCA response, TfGM had taken the trouble to consolidate the views of authorities across the city region who might otherwise have responded individually. The Task Force would give that due weight.

Well yes weighted support. I wouldn't expect a response from Warrington Borough Council saying they are against option C to cancel out GMCA's response in favour of a modified option C. However, it might be the West Yorkshire authorities would like a modified option C which would see the Newcastle to Manchester Airport services running all day or it might be they are in favour of A and don't really care about additional Leeds to Chester services.

 

[Glenn1969]

I think they would be in favour of anything that boosts Calder Valley connectivity

 

[Starmill]

One issue with the GMCA proposal is that it increases the off peak paths through Castlefield to 12tph, versus 11tph in Options B and C.

This would surely reduce the performance benefit.

Does a peak service simply changing to run all day really make that much difference? I doubt it.

It's interesting how a Wigan to Manchester and beyond via Golborne service neatly solves the question of how such a station may be served.

 

[Ianno87]

Does a peak service simply changing to run all day really make that much difference? I doubt it.

Yes. More space in the off peak gives greater scope to recover morning peak disruption in time for the evening peak.

The UIC guidelines for capacity utilisation specifically recommend a lower level of utilisation in the off peak for this reason.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I forgot to fill mine in but I hope they go for option C.

 

[Starmill]

Yes. More space in the off peak gives greater scope to recover morning peak disruption in time for the evening peak.

The UIC guidelines for capacity utilisation specifically recommend a lower level of utilisation in the off peak for this reason.

Proportionately it is far less of an issue than the total maximum number however. Fewer peak extra trains also makes things slightly simpler.

 

[peters]

I think they would be in favour of anything that boosts Calder Valley connectivity

The question is really would they support a package extending more Calder Valley services beyond Manchester Victoria if another part of that package is a reduction in direct Leeds to Manchester Airport services? While Chester's a nice city and the station is an interchange for services to North Wales, I don't think a half hourly service from Bradford and Halifax to Chester is going to be something that the West Yorkshire authorities will see as a must have.

Proportionately it is far less of an issue than the total maximum number however. Fewer peak extra trains also makes things slightly simpler.

I thought part of the reason for fewer passenger trains off-peak is so the freight trains to Trafford Park can run through outside of peak hours.

 

[Glenn1969]

But for Castlefield purposes the Calder Valley- Chester service is irrelevant because it goes via Chat Moss and doesn't serve Castlefield so using this argument is a little futile because having one doesn't lead to loss of the other unless I missed something

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought part of the reason for fewer passenger trains off-peak is so the freight trains to Trafford Park can run through outside of peak hours.

No. There is one freight path per hour both peak and off peak. That does not change in any of the options.

 

[peters]

But for Castlefield purposes the Calder Valley- Chester service is irrelevant because it goes via Chat Moss and doesn't serve Castlefield so using this argument is a little futile because having one doesn't lead to loss of the other unless I missed something

The pathing constraints in the Manchester area aren't limited to trains running via Castlefield. Half-hourly Chester to Calder Valley relies on the North Wales to Manchester service being diverted via Stockport. There isn't a path available for that service to run via Stockport under option A. Option A is the only one which retains Newcastle to Manchester Airport every hour, Option B sees it terminating at Victoria which option C sees it being off-peak only. However, as mentioned GMCA want option C to be revised so it included elements of option B including Newcastle trains terminating at Victoria. Hence, why I said for the West Yorkshire authorities it might be a choice of a Calder Valley extension or retaining half-hourly Leeds to Manchester Airport.