Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Greybeard33]

Option B+ includes 2tph to Buxton, thus also giving Hazel Grove 2tph. There's also a 1tph Piccadilly - Hazel Grove in the peak.

Thanks! Well that’s the path used east of Castlefield.

There were 2tph Picc to Buxton plus 1tph Blackpool to Hazel Grove in the Dec 2019 timetable, as there had been since May 2018. One of the Buxtons has been temporarily culled due to Covid in the current timetable. So Option B+ has a "spare" path between Picc and Hazel Grove in the standard hour.
Edit: On second thoughts, the spare path is really only between Slade Lane Junction and Hazel Grove. The diverted Blackpool - Airport service will presumably occupy the Slow line path between Piccadilly and Slade Lane.

 

[LittleAH]

The TPE paths for fast services across the Pennines are pretty much the same as previous so could revert to their new paths and stopping patterns east of Leeds, with Northern taking back the stoppers.

Doesn't work.

1) 185s accelerate more and have an improved journey time. Northern rolling stock isn't comparable
2) Hull services picking up peak time stoppers Manchester - Huddersfield mean there's one less service on the route and greatly improves reliability.
3) If TPE avoid Victoria, the problem returns to the Piccadilly throat/Guide Bridge.

Agreed - keep it simple

If all the Airport services ran through 13/14 and all the 13/14 services ran to the Airport then you'd remove a lot of conflicts and allow a much more balanced service (rather than nine trains per hour on the Airport branch but with gaps of up to seventeen minutes because of all the different long distance links, which means that the local stations on the line can't have a regular service into Manchester)

Problem is, Manchester doesn't have the western facing terminating platforms it needs, therefore you have through services running through to various locations to spin round. Not to forget that cross Manchester services have benefits. E.G someone living in Heaton Chapel can quite comfortably commute to Bolton.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is the result of the public consultation. I doubt they’d do another one.

From the Rail North Committee paper linked upthread (which was sponsored by David Hogarth, TfN Strategic Rail Director):

6. Recommendations:
6.1 Committee Members are asked to:
1) Endorse the Train Service timetable structure of the Task Force's proposed option B+ from December 2022.
2) Note the roadmap for further development of services beyond 2022.
3) Agree that the industry should proceed with detailed timetable development and plan for a second phase of public consultation in Autumn 2021.
4) Note that the long-term infrastructure and service solution for Manchester continues to be developed and that quarterly roundtable meetings are planned between Transport for the North members and ministers following the special NTAC meeting.

However, the Northern political leaders evidently refused to accept these recommendations in the 14 July Committee meeting:

https://transportforthenorth.com/press-release/northern-leaders-seek-further-commitments-before-new-rail-timetable-is-agreed/?mc_cid=241b8f3640&mc_eid=ead4a9f706

 

[daodao]

However, the Northern political leaders evidently refused to accept these recommendations in the 14 July Committee meeting:
https://transportforthenorth.com/pr...s-agreed/?mc_cid=241b8f3640&mc_eid=ead4a9f706

Based on this press release, the Northern regional mayors seem to be throwing their toys out of the pram. The whole point of this consultation was to improve performance and reliability with the least loss of connectivity/adverse passenger impact, as soon as practicable, without major infrastructure developments (which take ages to deliver).

The Northern political leaders do not appear to have accepted the basic premise of the consultation and resulting proposals. Is this Socialist political posturing, like Oliver asking for more gruel? Given the parlous state of the economy post-Covid, the government needs to make do and mend; they should just tell TfN to "do one".

 

[Killingworth]

Based on this press release, the Northern regional mayors seem to be throwing their toys out of the pram. The whole point of this consultation was to improve performance and reliability with the least loss of connectivity/adverse passenger impact, as soon as practicable, without major infrastructure developments (which take ages to deliver).

The Northern political leaders do not appear to have accepted the basic premise of the consultation and resulting proposals. Is this Socialist political posturing, like Oliver asking for more gruel? Given the parlous state of the economy post-Covid, the government needs to make do and mend; they should just tell TfN to "do one".

They're in a no win situation so registering a failure to agree is back covering, blame deflection.

Whatever changes are eventually implemented the benefits of better reliability will be widely spread and barely acknowledged. The past delays will not disappear completely, with so many long routes that's not possible. There'll still be complaints.

Every regular rail user who finds their daily routine changed for the worse will want a scapegoat. Blame TfN and the Mayor's. Who else can it be pinned on? Pass the parcel.

We all know there's no magic solution whatever anyone may vote for. We are victims of collective over optimistic expectations.

 

[Purple Orange]

Based on this press release, the Northern regional mayors seem to be throwing their toys out of the pram. The whole point of this consultation was to improve performance and reliability with the least loss of connectivity/adverse passenger impact, as soon as practicable, without major infrastructure developments (which take ages to deliver).

The Northern political leaders do not appear to have accepted the basic premise of the consultation and resulting proposals. Is this Socialist political posturing, like Oliver asking for more gruel? Given the parlous state of the economy post-Covid, the government needs to make do and mend; they should just tell TfN to "do one".

I see nothing wrong in them demanding that the government make committee to infrastructure investment in this context. This government is looking for any reason to roll back on investing in the north, The issue is commitment, not delivery right now.

 

[Greybeard33]

Based on this press release, the Northern regional mayors seem to be throwing their toys out of the pram. The whole point of this consultation was to improve performance and reliability with the least loss of connectivity/adverse passenger impact, as soon as practicable, without major infrastructure developments (which take ages to deliver).

The Northern political leaders do not appear to have accepted the basic premise of the consultation and resulting proposals. Is this Socialist political posturing, like Oliver asking for more gruel? Given the parlous state of the economy post-Covid, the government needs to make do and mend; they should just tell TfN to "do one".

Having now skimmed through the video of the Rail North Committee meeting, I think it is inaccurate to portray this as a party political conflict. There were no dissenting voices from any of the non-Labour authorities represented on the committee. In addition to the three Labour mayors quoted in the press release, the fourth speaker to criticise Option B+ was Craig Hughes Browne, representing Cheshire East Council - hardly a hotbed of socialism!

All the speakers seemed reluctantly willing to accept Option B+ as the least worst short term way forward, but only if the Government commits to a timetable of infrastructure enhancements that will address their respective concerns, namely:

• Sheffield City Region (Dan Jarvis): Restoration of direct services between Sheffield and Manchester Airport
• Greater Manchester (Andy Burnham): Victoria to Stalybridge electrification; restoration of 3tph on the Atherton line and 3tph to Hazel Grove; service provision for the reopened Golborne station
• West Yorkshire (Tracy Brabin): Introduction of direct services from Bradford and the Calder Valley to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport via the Ordsall Chord
• Cheshire East (Craig Browne): 3tph at Warrington West (only 1tph in B+); restoration/retention of direct services from Cheshire and N Wales to Manchester Airport (Option B+ removes the Liverpool - Airport service from the CLC line, and presumably Cheshire East is also concerned that the Task Force is proposing to continue work on the Option C diversion of the TfW N Wales service via the Mid Cheshire line, with a view to 2023 implementation).

 

[adrock1976]

Having now skimmed through the video of the Rail North Committee meeting, I think it is inaccurate to portray this as a party political conflict. There were no dissenting voices from any of the non-Labour authorities represented on the committee. In addition to the three Labour mayors quoted in the press release, the fourth speaker to criticise Option B+ was Craig Hughes, representing Cheshire East Council - hardly a hotbed of socialism!

All the speakers seemed reluctantly willing to accept Option B+ as the least worst short term way forward, but only if the Government commits to a timetable of infrastructure enhancements that will address their respective concerns, namely:

• Sheffield City Region (Dan Jarvis): Restoration of direct services between Sheffield and Manchester Airport
• Greater Manchester (Andy Burnham): Victoria to Stalybridge electrification; restoration of 3tph on the Atherton line and 3tph to Hazel Grove; service provision for the reopened Golborne station
• West Yorkshire (Tracy Brabin): Introduction of direct services from Bradford and the Calder Valley to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport via the Ordsall Chord
• Cheshire East (Craig Hughes): 3tph at Warrington West (only 1tph in B+); restoration/retention of direct services from Cheshire and N Wales to Manchester Airport (Option B+ removes the Liverpool - Airport service from the CLC line, and presumably Cheshire East is also concerned that the Task Force is proposing to continue work on the Option C diversion of the TfW N Wales service via the Mid Cheshire line, with a view to 2023 implementation).

Looking at the four bullet points, is this one of the many reasons for the present day mess in that every town and city both sides of the Pennines having a direct service to Manchester Airport?

Also, of all the direct trains every 60 minutes to Ringway pre pandemic, how many passengers stay on to the end, jet off to St Moritz or Juan-le-Pain, and return back the exact same day?

 

[daodao]

In addition to the three Labour mayors quoted in the press release, the fourth speaker to criticise Option B+ was Craig Hughes, representing Cheshire East Council - hardly a hotbed of socialism!

Cheshire East Council currently has a Labour leader and is administered by a joint Labour-Independent coalition.

There remains a demand by political leaders for direct trains to M/c Airport from their areas. If the Castlefield problem is to be resolved in the absence of major changes to infrastructure, the only workable solution is to remove at least some of these trains from the timetable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cheshire East Council currently has a Labour leader and is administered by a joint Labour-Independent coalition.

Sadly, some people's political party expectations are firmly fixed in the past and it was in recent times on a totally different thread matter that someone still lived in the belief that Trafford Council in Greater Manchester was permanently controlled by the Conservatives and appeared to be a sufferer of "Leafy lanes of Cheshire syndrome"..

 

[Austriantrain]

Nor of Berlin either, of course (but I was thinking more of the times when the Hauptbahnhof concept began to be developed). Both cities are examples of where the will to do something for the benefit of the whole system was there and the projects were pressed forward. It's worth also remembering what was done in Brussels at the end of WW2, much more recently in both Antwerp and Leipzig, and what's going on now in Stuttgart (though that's no example of good planning) to see how city systems can be properly and adequately linked up — and then compare Birmimgham, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow ... and weep.

You are right of course. While I try to be discreet on this forum, since I am an „outsider“, and while I also admire vast parts of the British rail system (not least the ability to run such a dense service on the available, often very restricted, infrastructure - even puts the Swiss to shame), I always struggle to comprehend the half-baked infrastructure solutions offered. Instead of doing the job once and right - even though it is expensive - everything is done piecemeal and probably no cheaper in the end. In the case of Manchester - if it were in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands or similar, a single central station and a cross-city tunnel would certainly be on the cards.

But I am going OT.

 

[daodao]

Instead of doing the job once and right - even though it is expensive - everything is done piecemeal and probably no cheaper in the end. In the case of Manchester - if it were in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands or similar, a single central station and a cross-city tunnel would certainly be on the cards.

In the 19th century, the rapidly expanding town and economic powerhouse of Manchester (given city status in 1853), was one of the most go ahead places on the planet, hence the saying "What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow." Sadly, this is no longer true. Great Britain's post-industrial economic decline means that major infrastructure projects are now relatively less affordable. This consultation is about how to make best use of existing facilities, because (as stated in my previous post) the UK government has little option other than to "make do and mend".

 

[Glenn1969]

In the 19th century, the rapidly expanding town and economic powerhouse of Manchester (given city status in 1853), was one of the most go ahead places on the planet, hence the saying "What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow." Sadly, this is no longer true. Great Britain's post-industrial economic decline means that major infrastructure projects are now relatively less affordable. This consultation is about how to make best use of existing facilities, because (as stated in my previous post) the UK government has little option other than to "make do and mend".

Or invest and build a futureproof 21st century railway

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the 19th century, the rapidly expanding town and economic powerhouse of Manchester (given city status in 1853), was one of the most go ahead places on the planet, hence the saying "What Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow." Sadly, this is no longer true. Great Britain's post-industrial economic decline means that major infrastructure projects are now relatively less affordable. This consultation is about how to make best use of existing facilities, because (as stated in my previous post) the UK government has little option other than to "make do and mend".

I hope you manage to have sight of a hardback book that I bought in the 1970s....."Manchester and the Textile Districts in 1849" by Angus Bethune Reach"

It makes good social commentary of the conditions so prevailing in the city at that time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2021 ==

Or invest and build a futureproof 21st century railway

Who is it who will be doing the actual investing?

 

[Glenn1969]

I hope you manage to have sight of a hardback book that I bought in the 1970s....."Manchester and the Textile Districts in 1849" by Angus Bethune Reach"

It makes good social commentary of the conditions so prevailing in the city at that time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2021 ==


Who is it who will be doing the actual investing?

The Government

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Government

I thought it was not likely that Brother Burnham would be anyway involved...

 

[Purple Orange]

I thought it was not likely that Brother Burnham would be anyway involved...

Who else would be investing in this infrastructure, in such a centralised country?

 

[Senex]

Who else would be investing in this infrastructure, in such a centralised country?

Just so — major schemes in this country aren't possible without the (highly-centralised and centralist) Treasury's backing. I wonder what would happen today if Birmingham, Liverpool, or Manchester came up with a massive water engineering scheme, such as each of them undertook as a local project in the latter years of the nineteenth century. My guess would be that it would be talked about for years and eventually there'd be annual water shortages and then eventually Westminster would allow some much-descoped scheme to proceed that even when complete would fail to solve the problem. How the great English (and Scottish) cities are fallen!

 

[daodao]

This thread is about a consultation to make best use of existing railway infrastructure to solve current rail service problems in Manchester. Posts suggesting/advocating infrastructure improvements are off topic, and belong in the speculative ideas sub-forum.

Sadly, the metro mayors also don't seem to have grasped the premise underlying the proposals, and are demanding commitments to spend on infrastructure instead of getting on with trying to implement the proposals as soon as possible.

Rephrased in view of possible ambiguity.

 

[WatcherZero]

So your arguing that the Metro Mayors are going off this topic thread? Conceited much?

The proposals are deeply flawed and always have been, they sacrifice considerable capacity and connections for an average a minute less delay seconds each hour. Even this B+ option has flaws with them admitting that if passenger demand returns to the pre-covid level there isnt enough seat capacity between Wigan and Manchester in the proposed timetable to meet demand.
It is not at all surprising that when the plans drawn up by those in Whitehall to reduce services are put out the the actual public that use the services on a daily basis they get a negative consultation response, and the governments proposals were not even tested to see if they could physically be timetabled before they were proposed, flawed on arrival.

 

[Amstel]

Greater Manchester (Andy Burnham): Victoria to Stalybridge electrification; restoration of 3tph on the Atherton line and 3tph to Hazel Grove; service provision for the reopened Golborne station

As a Hazel Grove resident i will accept stopping one of the Sheffield trains at Hazel Grove as compensation.

 

[tbtc]

You can’t compare London & Manchester in that way. Manchester still needs services to Newcastle, Scotland, North Wales etc but unlike London it doesn’t have the required terminal capacity.

But the Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Llandudno services don't all need to run through Castlefield

That's the problem with Castlefield though - people want it to be a frequent "Metro" and also lots of long distance routes

London will use CrossRail for Reading/ Heathrow - Shenfield/ Abbey Wood services - if they took the Manchester approach then there'd be running hourly services from Heathrow to Chingford, Hertford, Kings Lynn, Clacton, Margate and Dover (as well as through trains from Cardiff/ Bristol/ Oxford to destinations in Essex) - I'm sure there would be some people who'd want those kind of cross-London links (especially given how much more significant Heathrow is than Manchester Airport), but they are keeping things simple and reliable instead

Based on this press release, the Northern regional mayors seem to be throwing their toys out of the pram. The whole point of this consultation was to improve performance and reliability with the least loss of connectivity/adverse passenger impact, as soon as practicable, without major infrastructure developments (which take ages to deliver).

The Northern political leaders do not appear to have accepted the basic premise of the consultation and resulting proposals. Is this Socialist political posturing, like Oliver asking for more gruel? Given the parlous state of the economy post-Covid, the government needs to make do and mend; they should just tell TfN to "do one".

It's a mess - nobody wants to give up their favourite link - but the infrastructure can't cope with all of these different hourly services (and it'd take several years and hundreds of millions of pounds to try to create sufficient capacity)

 

[scrapy]

Didn't CrossCountry found a few minutes of journey time improvement out of it? That would have to be taken away again...

I don't get this obsession with turning back the clock.

Times North of Stoke were pretty much the same, although they added a second hourly stop at Macclesfield (which would still be possible). Journey time improvements were south of Stoke taking advantage of the new layout at Norton Bridge.

Generally I agree with you about turning back the clock and I would have preferred option C to the pre 2018 timetable, but think B+ is worse.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Generally I agree with you about turning back the clock and I would have preferred option C to the pre 2018 timetable, but think B+ is worse.

What is it particularly that makes you feel option C is superior to option A or B? I don't think much of the idea of sending the north Wales services via Altrincham (which option C does). Not only does it deprive north Wales of the airport service (which I don't think should really matter) but it also makes it a slower journey into Manchester*. Given that you could keep a fast journey into Manchester and still get the North Wales service off Castlefield by opting for option A, I think option C would be a very poor move.

* this is already a service I think should be faster, given the previous TfW's plans to re-route the Llandudno stoppers into Liverpool and the introduction of Northern's Leeds-Chester service there's potential to make the TfW just Manchester - Newton-le-Willows - Warrington Bank Quay - Chester - Fflint - Rhyl - Llandudno Junction - Bangor.

 

[InOban]

As an external poster I think that the metro mayors are quite reasonable. 'We'll accept your proposals in return for allocating £x billions to NR to be spent on upgrading capacity of the inner network.' I would leave it to NR to decide which schemes will give the best return - I believe that the flat junctions are more of a problem than the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Bald Rick]

As an external poster I think that the metro mayors are quite reasonable. 'We'll accept your proposals in return for allocating £x billions to NR to be spent on upgrading capacity of the inner network.' I would leave it to NR to decide which schemes will give the best return - I believe that the flat junctions are more of a problem than the Castlefield corridor.

What happens if the £billions don’t come?

 

[Glenn1969]

What happens if the £billions don’t come?

We get left with the Dec 19 timetable. Of course, if it was London I think the £billions would come (I seem to recall Crossrail 2 got greenlit at the same time as Castlefield was Graylinged)

 

[Bald Rick]

(I seem to recall Crossrail 2 got greenlit at the same time as Castlefield was Graylinged)

You recall incorrectly. Crossrail 2 was never ‘green lit’. In fact it has been subsequently shut down.

 

[Glenn1969]

Crossrail 2 was never ‘green lit’. In fact it has been subsequently shut down.

But it WAS approved by Government at the same time as Castlefield was Graylinged and probably would have got further if Crossrail 1 had opened on time

 

[Bald Rick]

But it WAS approved by Government at the same time as Castlefield was Graylinged and probably would have got further if Crossrail 1 had opened on time

It wasn’t approved. It never had been.

Crossrail 2 was granted conditional central Governement funding of £80m in 2016 - against an ask of £500m - for early development work only. This was not approval.

Castlefield has never been cancelled either. It is still ‘pending’.