Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[PR1Berske]

Having done a little detective work, I think this is a classic example of politicians not understanding what they were being presented with when the consultation was initiated. There seems to be a lot of crossness that the infrastructure won’t be fit for the services they want. There were never any proposals in the consultation to resolve the infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor, the proposal was always to deliver a reliable service on the existing infrastructure. So they can’t argue about that with integrity.

Andy Burnham also chooses his words carefully. The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.

As @Ianno87 rightly points out, there will be deliverable options, but they mean that’s somebody loses out. Isn’t that what we elect politicians to do? Take the tough calls for the benefit of society as a whole?

It does strike me that the ambition of the proposals did not match the assumptions of the politicians.

 

[Starmill]

The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.

To be fair some of us have been pointing that out since the consultation was first published. The standard of a "reliable" service that has framed the consultation clearly cannot be accomplished without big costs relating to rolling stock and train crew because there is very significant shifting required to compensate for the cuts. The Department ought to have realised that long ago. They certainly won't be wanting to fund those costs now.

I can't help but wonder if the better option wouldn't have been to just put up with a slightly less reliable service...

It does strike me that the ambition of the proposals did not match the assumptions of the politicians.

I agree but much more importantly they were designed to provide a modelled service based on reliability on current infrastructure. The cost of delivering that service (rather than the cost of changing the infrastructure, which was being excluded) appears to have been ignored by everyone.

 

[Glenn1969]

So what will be the outcome? Will DfT force one of the options on TfN albeit maybe at a later change date (say Dec 22?).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In fact, didn't the North Wales to London services also used to divert via Mouldsworth?

Only on the rare occasions (weekends/bank hols) that the Crewe-Chester line was blocked for engineering, usually at the Crewe end.
And only the minimum of through services to Holyhead (2-3 per day).

When the TfW Manchester service runs via the CLC it will again usually be Sundays when Northern services are thin on the ground.

 

[Rail Ranger]

After the test run? I'm pretty sure you're talking about the test run.

The purpose of the empty stock move was not advertised outside the industry.

 

[Eccles1983]

That would be unreliable, especially as it has to use Castlefield.

I thought May 2022 was supposed to be the earliest possible start date, what's with the hang up there? Seems to be a bit a feet dragging from the TOCs.

The bigger problem is not if they want to run it but whether they can. Someone at the DfT didn't check to see if Civitys can fit (which they can't between Hale & Northwich).

Tata Chemicals Europe and Barclays may want to beg to differ with you on that.

Barclays and tata can beg all they want. Annoyed of knutsford means absolutely nothing to members of the senedd. (Who are pulling the strings)

The flow of people from north wales to it is negligible. It doesn't need an extra service from a welsh perspective.

TfW has zero interest in the line. It does not serve any of its opererational or purposes except as a way to get units back from Manchester. It got dropped in rapid fashion when covid kicked off.

Added to the fact that they would have to then put nearly 50 drivers on it for route learning means if they don't have to they won't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Southport hasn't had a through service to the Airport since May 2018. It's the through service to Piccadilly that OPSTA are particularly vocal about; any timetable that doesn't include an all day service to there isn't acceptable in their eyes. Of course, they assume that every single rail user between Wigan and Southport thinks the same way they do, when in reality, the vast majority aren't fussed about which Manchester station the service runs to.

It's not even Piccadilly, it's Castlefield. I'd suggest Oxford Road might actually be the key desire, because of the uni etc (Oxford Road is certainly the station I've gone to from that line most in my lifetime, Deansgate probably second for going to the Museum). I don't think the airport really features, mainly because the vast majority of Sandgrounders will fly from Speke anyway, as it has plenty of sleasyJet and Eireflop routes which are what most people want these days, a much better train service almost all the way there, easy by car and not expensive to taxi.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The purpose of the empty stock move was not advertised outside the industry.

Was this the one that took place in June of last year? If so, that was the test that wound up with us eventually finding out that 195s down the Mid-Cheshire Line was a no go between Hale & Northwich due to clearance issues.

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought one of them was Mercer's Crossing north of Mobberley. Not aware of which the others are.

I believe the reference is to the two User Worked Crossings on the single line section between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford, Farmer Johnson's Crossing and Plemstall Crossing.

 

[Manutd1999]

If the only problem with Option C is the suitability of the mid-cheshire line, why can't they run the TfW to Victoria instead? It could continue to Leeds, replacing one of the two planned Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds services. North Wales would lose direct service to Piccadilly, but would gain a potentially useful link to Leeds and also keep the service to Warrington for WCML connections.

It's the through service to Piccadilly that OPSTA are particularly vocal about; any timetable that doesn't include an all day service to there isn't acceptable in their eyes.

This should be resisted IMO. It's unfortunate, but you can't please everybody and clearly there isn't enough capacity to run 2x services from Southport through Castlefield. So the choice is either:
a) have 2x hourly services to Victoria (and beyond), as per Option C
b) have 1x hourly to Victoria and 1x hourly to Castlefield

Option b) is significantly worse for the average passenger, as the service is essentially hourly unless you have a detailed knowledge of the network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Option b) is significantly worse for the average passenger, as the service is essentially hourly unless you have a detailed knowledge of the network.

People keep saying that, but people on the line largely agree with OPSTA and care about the Castlefield service, with the Victoria one being secondary. OPSTA is a passenger representative "body" and one that's been about for a long time (used to be OPTA and only care about Ormskirk-Preston), it's not just one bloke pushing their own personal agenda.

There may be (are) solid operational reasons not to have the split, but passengers actually do like the connectivity both services provide. And if you're equidistant from the two when you're heading home, it's not exactly hard to pull out your phone and quickly check which is the one to head for.

 

[Starmill]

If the only problem with Option C is the suitability of the mid-cheshire line, why can't they run the TfW to Victoria instead? It could continue to Leeds, replacing one of the two planned Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds services. North Wales would lose direct service to Piccadilly, but would gain a potentially useful link to Leeds and also keep the service to Warrington for WCML connections.

Crazy ideas like TfW running to Leeds are the cause of the problem we now find ourselves in with this consultation. TfW won't have adequate rolling stock to run through to Leeds, nor train crews who sign the route. Who's going to pay for that to be solved and how long will it take?

 

[daodao]

I am surprised that the committee did not consider tweaking the options, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For example for option C, if the TfW N.Wales service took one of the 2 tph paths between Chester and Victoria allocated to the Northern service from Leeds to Chester via Rochdale:

• the potential problem with LCs and capacity on the mid Cheshire line would be eliminated; and
• the number of Northern diagrams required would be reduced.

Crazy ideas like TfW running to Leeds are the cause of the problem we now find ourselves in with this consultation. TfW won't have adequate rolling stock to run through to Leeds, nor train crews who sign the route. Who's going to pay for that to be solved and how long will it take?

The service could be split at Victoria, as I suggested in my post above, with the truncated Northern service terminating in one of the bay platforms (1/2) there. The TfW service would need to run to a siding/Newton Heath to vacate the through Victoria platforms during its layover. I agree that running the TfW service through to Leeds would be problematic.

 

[peters]

Only on the rare occasions (weekends/bank hols) that the Crewe-Chester line was blocked for engineering, usually at the Crewe end.
And only the minimum of through services to Holyhead (2-3 per day).

When the TfW Manchester service runs via the CLC it will again usually be Sundays when Northern services are thin on the ground.

Before London to Manchester went to 3tph there were some weekend closures on the Warrington line which went on for months and resulted in Arriva Wales trains running via Altrincham on both Saturdays and Sundays. I even remember weekday peak time Piccadilly to Llandudno services being permitted to divert via Altrincham during disruption.

I accept North Wales to London has only ever been a few trains per day. However, I thought it was closer to 5 trains rather than the 2-3 you mention.

 

[peters]

Forget TFW putting anything additional down the mid cheshire line.

They dont have the ambition, political requirement, resources or even interest in it.

It's a diversion route. Nothing more or less. It's in no way as important as some on here think.

How important a route is depends how many people use it and what alternative there is (if any.)

I notice your username is Eccles1983. It would be very easy to add an additional service at Eccles but is it worth it when Eccles has trans and buses which both run at a high frequency?

For Mid-Cheshire a lot of people use the trains between Greenbank and Manchester and there isn't an alternative for many. I'm sure someone said when the additional services were decided for the Arriva franchise the local one (i.e. non-Northern Connect) with the best BCR was the Greenbank followed by the Macclesfield.

@LOL The Irony I suggested a Greenbank service could be an extension of the proposed Southport to Oxford Rd because not running the Wigan to Hazel Grove beyond Oxford Rd would free up a path through Stockport. So in theory there would be 2 paths available, the other one being the one TfW would not use. I presume the idea is the additional Wigan to Hazel Grove would be operated by an electric train, so it's not possible to send that to Greenbank instead of Hazel Grove.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought May 2022 was supposed to be the earliest possible start date, what's with the hang up there? Seems to be a bit a feet dragging from the TOCs.

How have they been dragging their feet? I don’t see that at all.

 

[Ianno87]

If the only problem with Option C is the suitability of the mid-cheshire line, why can't they run the TfW to Victoria instead? It could continue to Leeds, replacing one of the two planned Chester-Victoria-Bradford-Leeds services. North Wales would lose direct service to Piccadilly, but would gain a potentially useful link to Leeds and also keep the service to Warrington for WCML connections.

The other option is to "go nuclear" and simply not operate TfW East of Chester, with Victoria-Chester only being provided by the 2tph Northern service. Which of course won't be popular.

The service could be split at Victoria, as I suggested in my post above, with the truncated Northern service terminating in one of the bay platforms (1/2) there. The TfW service would need to run to a siding/Newton Heath to vacate the through Victoria platforms during its layover. I agree that running the TfW service through to Leeds would be problematic.

The last thing we need to solve congestion issues is terminating trains in the through platforms at Victoria, even if they can in theory clear to a siding.

 

[PR1Berske]

TfW to beyond Manchester would deprive some area of Wales of a service, even if it's just 4 carriages for a couple of hours, it could be utilised far better keeping any Welsh service no further east than Picc or Vic.


I've always considered the Southport-Manc question to be quite tedious. If they terminate at Vic, they're still in Manchester. Connections via Metrolink to Picc and beyond don't make it so bad that it's unworkable, it's not like London terminals where there are significant distances in some cases. If it boils down to Piccadilly being the "main" station and nothing else, that's not much of a valid reason.

 

[Ianno87]

I've always considered the Southport-Manc question to be quite tedious. If they terminate at Vic, they're still in Manchester. Connections via Metrolink to Picc and beyond don't make it so bad that it's unworkable, it's not like London terminals where there are significant distances in some cases. If it boils down to Piccadilly being the "main" station and nothing else, that's not much of a valid reason.

Plus the availability of a same-platform interchange at Bolton or Salford Crescent.

 

[daodao]

The other option is to "go nuclear" and simply not operate TfW East of Chester, with Victoria-Chester only being provided by the 2tph Northern service. Which of course won't be popular.



The last thing we need to solve congestion issues is terminating trains in the through platforms at Victoria, even if they can in theory clear to a siding.

I don't see the problem if the train just occupies the platform for 2-3 minutes, to load/unload passengers. I agree that terminating trains shouldn't layover in the through platforms.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't see the problem if the train just occupies the platform for 2-3 minutes, to load/unload passengers. I agree that terminating trains shouldn't layover in the through platforms.

It all just takes longer and adds complexity to the operation (e.g. ensuring terminating trains are clear of passengers, starting trains need the driver to set the passenger information up, etc), rather than being a simple arrive-unload-load-depart operation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other option is to "go nuclear" and simply not operate TfW East of Chester, with Victoria-Chester only being provided by the 2tph Northern service. Which of course won't be popular.

Very bad idea. It would be better to remove one of the two Chester to Leeds services entirely.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've always considered the Southport-Manc question to be quite tedious. If they terminate at Vic, they're still in Manchester. Connections via Metrolink to Picc and beyond don't make it so bad that it's unworkable, it's not like London terminals where there are significant distances in some cases. If it boils down to Piccadilly being the "main" station and nothing else, that's not much of a valid reason.

Noting that the Southport line is only served by DMU, can I ask how much use is currently made of the Manchester-facing bay platform at Rochdale?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus the availability of a same-platform interchange at Bolton or Salford Crescent.

Indeed, as long as it is well timed.

 

[Ianno87]

Very bad idea. It would be better to remove one of the two Chester to Leeds services entirely.

If the only thing stopping Option C from working is the level crossings via Northwich, then terminate the problem train short, at an operationally feasible location. That strikes me as a good idea in an operational sense.

Noting that the Southport line is only served by DMU, can I ask how much use is currently made of the Manchester-facing bay platform at Rochdale?

Basically used to terminate the 2tph from Clitheroe/Blackburn via Bolton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the only thing stopping Option C from working is the level crossings via Northwich, then terminate the problem train short, at an operationally feasible location. That strikes me as a good idea in an operational sense.

Operationally yes, but it completely disregards the primary destination from North Wales. It would be a bit like (on a smaller scale) terminating Trent Valley local services at Northampton.

Why is there an obsession with wanting 2tph Chester-Vic when this is a totally new service? One would be fine, in the opposite half hour to the TfW.

 

[Ianno87]

Operationally yes, but it completely disregards the primary destination from North Wales. It would be a bit like (on a smaller scale) terminating Trent Valley local services at Northampton.

Why is there an obsession with wanting 2tph Chester-Vic when this is a totally new service? One would be fine, in the opposite half hour to the TfW.

I'd argue the primary journey destination from Manchester is actually Chester, with passengers beyond Chester being the minority. And 2tph evenly spaced serves this better than 1+1tph unevenly spaced.

Something has to give in this. The North Wales service could always be diverted (as an extra service) to Crewe to give a Piccadilly/Airport connection from there (which can be almost just as fast with a decent connection)

 

[daodao]

It all just takes longer and adds complexity to the operation (e.g. ensuring terminating trains are clear of passengers, starting trains need the driver to set the passenger information up, etc), rather than being a simple arrive-unload-load-depart operation.

One modification to option C which would solve this problem and simplify working patterns even further would be to swap termini and operate:

• 1 tph Northern (or TfW) Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
• 1 tph TfW N.Wales-Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
• 2 tph Northern Southport-Wigan-Bolton-Victoria-Rochdale-Leeds
• 1 tph only Northern Chester-Altrincham-Piccadilly (as at present)

This would separate the Bolton/Wigan/Rochdale services and the Chat Moss/Castlefield/Stalybridge services at Victoria to platforms 5/6 and 3/4 respectively.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crazy ideas like TfW running to Leeds are the cause of the problem we now find ourselves in with this consultation. TfW won't have adequate rolling stock to run through to Leeds, nor train crews who sign the route. Who's going to pay for that to be solved and how long will it take?

It's no different to the reverse which was recently implemented - extending Northern Calder Valley services to Chester.
Stock and crews can be swapped - they will all be CAF Civitys anyway.
TOCs are not static things, especially in the current climate under direct government control
But you have to get past the Welsh/Chester lobby for airport trains first.
Let's face it, if the Calder Valley route was electrified, the through trains would probably head for Liverpool (as was initially promised).

 

[peters]

The other option is to "go nuclear" and simply not operate TfW East of Chester, with Victoria-Chester only being provided by the 2tph Northern service. Which of course won't be popular.

Or for Northern's services to only go as far as Greenbank, with TfW Rail doing all stops to Greenbank which again wouldn't be popular. Although, given that there are already paths for peak time extras between Greenbank and Chester, maybe it would be possible for Northern to run peak time services to Chester in the unlikely event that alternative is being considered.

One modification to option C which would solve this problem and simplify working patterns even further would be to swap termini and operate:

• 1 tph Northern Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
• 1 tph TfW N.Wales-Chester-Victoria-Stalybridge
• 2 tph Northern Southport-Wigan-Bolton-Victoria-Rochdale-Leeds
• 1 tph only Northern Chester-Altrincham-Piccadilly (as at present)

This would separate the Bolton/Wigan/Rochdale services and the Chat Moss/Castlefield/Stalybridge services at Victoria to platforms 5/6 and 3/4 respectively.

If the issues are between Greenbank and Chester there's no reason why Northern couldn't run an additional hourly Greenbank to Piccadilly service as originally planned. They wouldn't need any additional trains over what was originally required for option C as it would be hourly Greenbank to Piccadilly instead of an additional hourly Chester to Victoria. However, given TfN haven't just said they are doing that I don't think the reported level crossing issue is the main issue with option C.