Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[jfollows]

The only platform at Crewe that can access both Chester and Manchester routes is Platform 6. Which is busy enough without being chewed up twice per hour for a split or a join.

And lots of single points of failure, literally as it were .... a few years back there was such a service and I think there was a period during which it had to reverse at Gresty Lane or somewhere similar because of a points failure on the normal route from platform 6 to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Avanti should only provide 3-4 tpd to chip in at Golborne, not an hourly service.

I'd like to win the lottery, doesn't mean it will happen!

 

[Purple Orange]

I find its use appropriate most of the time and if you're familiar with what the phrase means, no further explanation is usually required. It's mostly used on here to counter the sentiment that every town, village and halt in the north of England should have a direct service to Manchester Airport, no matter what the cost to other journey opportunities, even though most people on any train at any one time won't be going there.

Likewise with diverting a long or medium distance service onto Chat Moss merely to serve Golborne; although that said, something would have to serve it if it were to be built.

I disagree. If you're going to use phrase, explain why you think the other idea is not suitable. It's not correct that the phrase is uniformly applied to mean the same thing other than "I disagree and I'm shutting down the conversation".

 

[30907]

My suggestion (above) to divert the TfW service to Crewe doesn't disrupt the rest of option C and solves the problem with the mid Cheshire line.

I'd go with this.
Assuming it replaces the existing shuttle, there is a good connection at Crewe into the TfW to Manchester. Not so good the other way, though, and not cross-platform.
Perhaps the Crewe-Airport local should be retimed to provide a good connection (through working is a non starter)?
It saves TfW a couple of unit/crew diagrams. I wonder where they could use them, but that's OT....

 

[Llandudno]

I'd go with this.
Assuming it replaces the existing shuttle, there is a good connection at Crewe into the TfW to Manchester. Not so good the other way, though, and not cross-platform.
Perhaps the Crewe-Airport local should be retimed to provide a good connection (through working is a non starter)?
It saves TfW a couple of unit/crew diagrams. I wonder where they could use them, but that's OT....

I agree on the face of it this appears to be a relatively simple solution to the problem, but I think there would be huge resentment from north Wales passengers losing their hourly direct train to Manchester.

Similarly the tourism sector in north Wales would be against it as the lack of a through service from Manchester may deter day trippers and force the Abergele/Rhyl caravan visitors to travel by other means further clogging up the A55/A548 in the summer.

The A55/M56 is busy enough as it is without generating extra road traffic due to an inadequate train service.

I think most north Wales passengers would choose to change onto the Northern service at Chester, as the train starts from there rather than continue to Crewe and cram onto a possibly already crowded train, especially if the next train from Crewe to Manchester is a two car unit from Milford Haven!

 

[Confused52]

If Option B or C were to be chosen the result will be to remove any useful outcome from the building of Warrington West. It was intended to make commuting to Manchester a credible alternative to the car as the area round the station has high car use and poor connections to other train services and the Sankey station car park is too small to be useful for anything other than pedestrians and cyclists.

A significant amount of the money paid by the council was actually contributed through the house prices of local residents via a section 106 and 299A agreement with David Wilson. Should option B or C go ahead a lot of people will be looking for compensation from Network Rail who have deliberately made the situation worse than it need have been by failing to use class 195 timings which would have allowed more trains to stop and now think that it is more important to let Manchester Airport make a profit than offer travel to work opportunities to the residents of Warrington.

 

[Ianno87]

If Option B or C were to be chosen the result will be to remove any useful outcome from the building of Warrington West. It was intended to make commuting to Manchester a credible alternative to the car as the area round the station has high car use and poor connections to other train services and the Sankey station car park is too small to be useful for anything other than pedestrians and cyclists.

A significant amount of the money paid by the council was actually contributed through the house prices of local residents via a section 106 and 299A agreement with David Wilson. Should option B or C go ahead a lot of people will be looking for compensation from Network Rail who have deliberately made the situation worse than it need have been by failing to use class 195 timings which would have allowed more trains to stop and now think that it is more important to let Manchester Airport make a profit than offer travel to work opportunities to the residents of Warrington.

The consultation does allude to the "fast" services (the Cleethorpes-Liverpool and possibly the Nottingham-Liverpool) picking up some extra stops to compensate for the change to the local service. Warrington West could conceivably be one of these.

I'd also suspect the wording of any agreements is very careful in not committing to any particular service outcome and where the risk any changes to this lies with.

 

[Gareth]

I disagree. If you're going to use phrase, explain why you think the other idea is not suitable. It's not correct that the phrase is uniformly applied to mean the same thing other than "I disagree and I'm shutting down the conversation".

Well, it's a well-known phrase. There's nothing innately within it that shuts down a conversation. You just say "no, it isn't the tail wagging the dog because XYZ".

True, it might be becoming a Rail Forums cliché but there's plenty of others such as "where's the rolling stock going to come from?", "who's going to fund it?" and "I know, let's merge all the TOCS. We could call it something like British Rail".

 

[Purple Orange]

You just say "no, it isn't the tail wagging the dog because XYZ".

That’s what I raised originally. Always say the XYZ. By all means folk can use the phrase, but please expand on why you think the original idea is not a good suggestion.

 

[peters]

If Option B or C were to be chosen the result will be to remove any useful outcome from the building of Warrington West. It was intended to make commuting to Manchester a credible alternative to the car as the area round the station has high car use and poor connections to other train services and the Sankey station car park is too small to be useful for anything other than pedestrians and cyclists.

A significant amount of the money paid by the council was actually contributed through the house prices of local residents via a section 106 and 299A agreement with David Wilson. Should option B or C go ahead a lot of people will be looking for compensation from Network Rail who have deliberately made the situation worse than it need have been by failing to use class 195 timings which would have allowed more trains to stop and now think that it is more important to let Manchester Airport make a profit than offer travel to work opportunities to the residents of Warrington.

There was a Warrington Guardian article where people were complaining those options would prevent Padgate to Liverpool commutes. However, in both cases if the stoppers connect with the fast trains at Warrington it could mean faster commutes to the relevant cities as the additional connection time could more than made up by the time saving of the fast trains skipping stations.

Did the council have a signed contract with Northern or Network Rail? If not why would they get compensation. Did Merseyrail get compensation because the fast trains to Manchester Piccadilly didn't call at Liverpool South Parkway when it first opened?

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree on the face of it this appears to be a relatively simple solution to the problem, but I think there would be huge resentment from north Wales passengers losing their hourly direct train to Manchester.

Similarly the tourism sector in north Wales would be against it as the lack of a through service from Manchester may deter day trippers and force the Abergele/Rhyl caravan visitors to travel by other means further clogging up the A55/A548 in the summer.

The A55/M56 is busy enough as it is without generating extra road traffic due to an inadequate train service.

I think most north Wales passengers would choose to change onto the Northern service at Chester, as the train starts from there rather than continue to Crewe and cram onto a possibly already crowded train, especially if the next train from Crewe to Manchester is a two car unit from Milford Haven!

Indeed. There has been little discussion of Option B in this thread. This option retains the direct N Wales - Airport service via Warrington and Castlefield, but has many of the operational advantages of Option C.

Some downsides of Option B relative to Option C:

• Loss of direct services from Blackpool to the Airport (both Blackpool services go to Alderley Edge via Stockport, but possibility of a same platform change at Oxford Road or Piccadilly to the N Wales, Liverpool via Chat Moss, Scotland, Cumbria or Redcar airport services)
• Loss of direct service from Newcastle to the Airport (terminates at Victoria, leaving only 1tph on the Ordsall Chord)
• Loss of direct service from the Calder Valley to Chester via Warrington (Northern Chester via Warrington service diverted to Stalybridge; both Leeds via Bradford services terminate in the Victoria bay platforms)
• No peak-only Southport - Oxford Road direct service (need to change at Wigan, Bolton or Salford Crescent)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course Timetable-able ≠ workable. Timetable-ability is only Step 1 (although A and B could be workable with enough time and money thrown at the train crew issues).

At this point, Option C with diversion/removal of the TfW service may be the only show in town. And one that, as a whole, makes best use of the North West network in connectivity terms (but at the expense of direct North Wales-Manchester. Yes I know that will upset a few people. Any workable option is going to upset somebody somewhere). The only other alternative is kicking the can down the road and North West Rail users having a perpetually poor performing rail service.

I fail to see any reason why it would not be workable and timetableable if it simply ran in the path of one of the Chester-Leeds services, with that remaining as a Vic-Leeds service as it presently (I believe) is. Chester is hardly short of platforms if that meant it had to sit there for a bit.

Indeed. There has been little discussion of Option B in this thread. This option retains the direct N Wales - Airport service via Warrington and Castlefield, but has many of the operational advantages of Option C.

Some downsides of Option B relative to Option C:

• Loss of direct services from Blackpool to the Airport (both Blackpool services go to Alderley Edge via Stockport, but possibility of a same platform change at Oxford Road or Piccadilly to the N Wales, Liverpool via Chat Moss, Scotland, Cumbria or Redcar airport services)
• Loss of direct service from Newcastle to the Airport (terminates at Victoria, leaving only 1tph on the Ordsall Chord)
• Loss of direct service from the Calder Valley to Chester via Warrington (Northern Chester via Warrington service diverted to Stalybridge; both Leeds via Bradford services terminate in the Victoria bay platforms)
• No peak-only Southport - Oxford Road direct service (need to change at Wigan, Bolton or Salford Crescent)

I'm not sure loss of direct Blackpool-Airport services is that big a thing. It's not like Blackpool is an important international holiday destination, and Preston would retain the Cumbria and Scotland-Airport services, with Chorley etc able to connect at Oxford Road or Picc.

With regard to Southport, I would love to see the actual timetable for this option (and the others) - a 5 minute connection at Salford Crescent/Bolton to Castlefield would be great, a 25 minute one would be unacceptably poor. An "OKish" average would be that the Southports left Bolton on the opposite 15 minutes to the Blackpools, giving an acceptable but not amazing connection both ways. It's same platform which is good, but if you had to stand around longer than you'd have to walk from Vic then that would be a bit useless.

 

[Ianno87]

I fail to see any reason why it would not be workable and timetableable if it simply ran in the path of one of the Chester-Leeds services, with that remaining as a Vic-Leeds service as it presently (I believe) is.

Because the platform occupancy needed at Victoria might not work out, and any shunt moves to clear the platform may not either, as I think the point of Option C is a fairly optimised timetable structure to make the most of the "standardised" flows through the area.

Taking the current Leeds-Chester path as an example, the turnback Leeds to Leeds would be OK (about 15 minutes), but the Chester to Chester turnback would be somewhere in the region of 45 minutes to find something to do with the unit. And what you can do with it depends on what else is going on at Vic at that time of the hour.

Chester is hardly short of platforms if that meant it had to sit there for a bit.

Although getting it across the WCML at Warrington at a different time will be the trickier part.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although getting it across the WCML at Warrington at a different time will be the trickier part.

I more meant so it could get into the path of one of those Chester-Leeds services.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure loss of direct Blackpool-Airport services is that big a thing. It's not like Blackpool is an important international holiday destination,

Well, quite, but I can assure you that many of the residents of Blackpool and the Fylde are very keen to get out of the country on a regular basis to avoid the inbound domestic tourists that do turn up!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, quite, but I can assure you that many of the residents of Blackpool and the Fylde are very keen to get out of the country on a regular basis to avoid the inbound domestic tourists that do turn up!

There is that!

 

[peters]

I'm not sure loss of direct Blackpool-Airport services is that big a thing. It's not like Blackpool is an important international holiday destination, and Preston would retain the Cumbria and Scotland-Airport services, with Chorley etc able to connect at Oxford Road or Picc.

For international tourists arriving in the UK the Lake District is the important link, at least in the summer. For US and Canadian visitors Liverpool seems to be a more popular place to visit than any of the other cities in the north, probably because of the historic links to people leaving the UK through Liverpool.

 

[Llandudno]

For international tourists arriving in the UK the Lake District is the important link, at least in the summer. For US and Canadian visitors Liverpool seems to be a more popular place to visit than any of the other cities in the north, probably because of the historic links to people leaving the UK through Liverpool.

I think the Beatles may be the main draw for US visitors...

 

[NorthWestRover]

Beatles, Liverpool FC, Family Heritage in that order. Nothing to do with Castlefield though.

 

[Greybeard33]

Beatles, Liverpool FC, Family Heritage in that order. Nothing to do with Castlefield though.

It is relevant in that Option A keeps both direct services from Manchester Airport to Liverpool, while Option B retains only the stopper via Chat Moss and Option C has no direct service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For international tourists arriving in the UK the Lake District is the important link, at least in the summer. For US and Canadian visitors Liverpool seems to be a more popular place to visit than any of the other cities in the north, probably because of the historic links to people leaving the UK through Liverpool.

Either way, there isn't a massive need for a direct Blackpool to Manchester Airport service if it's operationally more convenient to connect it to somewhere else, provided Airport services remained on the corridor more widely (which 2tph of them would).

It is relevant in that Option A keeps both direct services from Manchester Airport to Liverpool, while Option B retains only the stopper via Chat Moss and Option C has no direct service.

If you're talking Chinese and US tourists, they aren't going to be flying to Manchester in huge numbers. They'll fly to Heathrow, "do" London* first, then use Avanti West Coast (or HS2) to get to their preferred bit of the North West. Meanwhile, European tourists wanting to visit Liverpool will just use sleasyJet or Eireflop to fly to Speke instead.

UK regional airports are more for British people flying other places than tourists coming in.

* And Oxford, Stratford etc.

 

[Glenn1969]

US tourists definitely could be flying to Manchester given several direct routes. Hainan Airlines launched a Beijing- Manchester service but it isn't clear if it will resume post Covid yet

 

[30907]

I agree on the face of it this appears to be a relatively simple solution to the problem, but I think there would be huge resentment from north Wales passengers losing their hourly direct train to Manchester.

Agreed. In which case you have to run through Vic to somewhere, with wasted mileage (Newton Heath depot seems the least worst. ).

 

[Glenn1969]

But someone has to be upset. And compared to others North Wales is probably a small market

 

[Confused52]

There was a Warrington Guardian article where people were complaining those options would prevent Padgate to Liverpool commutes. However, in both cases if the stoppers connect with the fast trains at Warrington it could mean faster commutes to the relevant cities as the additional connection time could more than made up by the time saving of the fast trains skipping stations.

Did the council have a signed contract with Northern or Network Rail? If not why would they get compensation. Did Merseyrail get compensation because the fast trains to Manchester Piccadilly didn't call at Liverpool South Parkway when it first opened?

You miss my point, the money came from the purchasers of local houses and the council had a contract with Network Rail. Network rail did not make best endeavours or exercise proper technical competence because the situation would not have occurred if they had as the excess capacity came from the Ordsall Chord and not the traffic at Warrington West. As I said if the timings for trains at WAW had been done with class 195 data instead of sprinter timings there would have been a neutral outcome so all the problem is after the availability of Class 195 sets to Northern was caused by the erroneous opening of the Ordsall Chord without the extra capacity work at Oxford Road and Piccadilly. That is no-ones fault but Network Rail, they don't have to slavishly follow the whims of Greater Manchester, they choose to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

US tourists definitely could be flying to Manchester given several direct routes.

Some might, but most won't because London is the big draw, not the North West.

Hainan Airlines launched a Beijing- Manchester service but it isn't clear if it will resume post Covid yet

I suspect the main custom for that, unless it's sold very cheaply, will be the Chinese diaspora, not tourists.

 

[Greybeard33]

Either way, there isn't a massive need for a direct Blackpool to Manchester Airport service if it's operationally more convenient to connect it to somewhere else, provided Airport services remained on the corridor more widely (which 2tph of them would).



If you're talking Chinese and US tourists, they aren't going to be flying to Manchester in huge numbers. They'll fly to Heathrow, "do" London* first, then use Avanti West Coast (or HS2) to get to their preferred bit of the North West. Meanwhile, European tourists wanting to visit Liverpool will just use sleasyJet or Eireflop to fly to Speke instead.

UK regional airports are more for British people flying other places than tourists coming in.

* And Oxford, Stratford etc.

I take it you didn't spend much time at Manchester Airport station pre-pandemic?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But someone has to be upset. And compared to others North Wales is probably a small market

But with large political clout as it's a devolved Government.

And as has been pointed out, if you run it in place of the second Chester-Leeds (and still run the other one) you aren't going to upset many people at all, because there is still a service from Chester to Leeds, just a slightly less frequent one, not only that but one that doesn't exist now so a market for a half hourly service has not been built up.

I take it you didn't spend much time at Manchester Airport station pre-pandemic?

Did you survey all arrivals to ask the reason for their trip, and if they were considering heading for the sights of Blackpool?

 

[Purple Orange]

Either way, there isn't a massive need for a direct Blackpool to Manchester Airport service if it's operationally more convenient to connect it to somewhere else, provided Airport services remained on the corridor more widely (which 2tph of them would).



If you're talking Chinese and US tourists, they aren't going to be flying to Manchester in huge numbers. They'll fly to Heathrow, "do" London* first, then use Avanti West Coast (or HS2) to get to their preferred bit of the North West. Meanwhile, European tourists wanting to visit Liverpool will just use sleasyJet or Eireflop to fly to Speke instead.

UK regional airports are more for British people flying other places than tourists coming in.

* And Oxford, Stratford etc.

Exactly. Tourism in Liverpool & Manchester is mainly all about the weekend p*** up, after flying in on a cheap low cost carrier. What that means is as long as the airport has good onward connections, there is no specific reason for any town or city to occupy a route MAN. If it was down to me, there would be a 6 tph all stop service to Victoria & Stalybidge, with a further 6 tph all stop to Liverpool via the CLC (with no other fasts on the CLC either), with 6-car EMUs. Everyone else has to make do with changing on to what is a very frequent service to the airport.

 

[Greybeard33]

Did you survey all arrivals to ask the reason for their trip, and if they were considering heading for the sights of Blackpool?

No, but I have travelled on Airport to Blackpool trains where many of my fellow passengers were foreign tourists with luggage.

I think it is for those who claim that direct Airport services are unnecessary to provide the data that supports their prejudices.