Suggested service pattern Manchester - Leeds via Huddersfield

[adrock1976]

With some recent comments in the Manchester Taskforce Recovery Timetable (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...able-consultation.213089/page-50#post-5238997) suggesting service patterns to improve reliability, plus the Transpennine Route Upgrade, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Hope Valley upgrade, and post-HS2, all of these appear to be integrated and (to me) cannot really be looked at in isolation alone.

Although the TPE services may be tweaked and/or revised in the short term, I am posting this thread mainly for a longer term vision, such as post HS2 and the TRU/Northern Powerhouse Rail.

My suggested service pattern would be as follows (assuming TRU and no Northern Powerhouse):

Liverpool Lime Street - Newcastle Central calling St Helens Junction, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Micklefield, York, Darlington Bank Top, Durham, and Newcastle Central every 30 minutes.

Manchester Piccadilly (train shed) - York calling Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Garforth, and York every 30 minutes, with alternate trains every 60 minutes continuing to Redcar Central/Saltburn calling Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby, Middlesbrough, and Redcar Central/Saltburn.

Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield local every 30 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

Huddersfield - Leeds local every 60 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

Huddersfield - Wakefield Kirkgate/Castleford/York/wherever local every 60 minutes (for local stations to Leeds, change at Mirfield)

Man Vic (or somewhere west) - Leeds via Hebden Bridge every 60 minutes calling as present to Mirfield, then all stations to Leeds.

York - Scarborough shuttle every 30 minutes, calling Malton, Seamer, and Scarborough (also the reopened station between York and Malton if it ever happens).

Hull - Bradford Interchange via Leeds every 60 minutes calling Brough, Selby, Micklefield/Garforth Parkway (if it opens), Leeds, and Bradford Interchange.


For the Hope Valley route, the service pattern would be as follows (again, assuming TRU and no NPR/HS3):

Liverpool Lime Street - Cleethorpes via Scunthorpe every 60 minutes calling Liverpool South Parkway*, Widnes*, Warrington Central*, Birchwood*, Irlam*, Manchester Oxford Road, Man Pic, Stockport, Sheffield, Meadowhall Interchange, Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Barnetby, Habrough, Grimsby Town, and Clethorpes. * If Merseyrail extends from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, and a local Warrington Central - Man Airport is introduced, then this would run via Earlestown instead of Warrington Central, calling Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Eccles (for Manchester Metrolink), Deansgate, Man Oxford Road, then as above.

Liverpool Lime Street - Hull via Doncaster every 60 minutes calling Liverpool South Parkway*, Widnes*, Warrington Central*, Birchwood*, Irlam*, Manchester Oxford Road, Man Pic, Stockport, Sheffield, Meadowhall Interchange, Doncaster, Goole (or Selby), Howden, Brough, and Hull.
* If Merseyrail extends from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, and a local Warrington Central - Man Airport is introduced, then this would run via Earlestown instead of Warrington Central, calling Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Eccles (for Manchester Metrolink), Deansgate, Man Oxford Road, then as above.

Manchester Pic - New Mills Central/Sheffield via Bredbury every 30 minutes, calling all stations with extensions every 60 minutes to Sheffield, calling all stations.

Manchester Pic - Nottingham via Dore South Curve every 60 minutes calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, Dore & Totley*, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Toton Interchange (for HS2 and Nottingham Trams), Beeston, and Nottingham. Alternatively after Chesterfield, it could call Belper, Derby, Long Eaton, Beeston, and Nottingham. * Unsure if there was ever a platform on the South Curve or not.

Liverpool - York would still be every 30 minutes, with Stalybridge - York being every 15 minutes over that common section of route.

Liverpool - Man Pic would still be every 30 minutes, as would Man Pic - Sheffield via Stockport. This would result in the Cleethorpes taking over the limited stop Northern service west of Pic, the East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich split (with the Liverpool - Sheffield section transferring to TPE and continuing to Hull), with both the Northern Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley running to Nottingham every 30 minutes (one of those would take over the Sheffield - Nottingham section of the split Liverpool - Norwich).

Manchester - Chesterfield and Nottingham would still maintain a direct train every 60 minutes by running via Dore South Curve.

 

[HS2isgood]

With some recent comments in the Manchester Taskforce Recovery Timetable (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...able-consultation.213089/page-50#post-5238997) suggesting service patterns to improve reliability, plus the Transpennine Route Upgrade, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Hope Valley upgrade, and post-HS2, all of these appear to be integrated and (to me) cannot really be looked at in isolation alone.

Although the TPE services may be tweaked and/or revised in the short term, I am posting this thread mainly for a longer term vision, such as post HS2 and the TRU/Northern Powerhouse Rail.

My suggested service pattern would be as follows (assuming TRU and no Northern Powerhouse):

The plan is that Transpennine Route Upgrade should allow for eight trains per hour between Manchester and Leeds, four fast (Only Huddersfield, idk if Dewsbury too?), two semi-fast (I suppose calling Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, but idk if somewhere else is planned) and 2 slow all-stops.

Liverpool Lime Street - Newcastle Central calling St Helens Junction, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Micklefield, York, Darlington Bank Top, Durham, and Newcastle Central every 30 minutes.

Manchester Piccadilly (train shed) - York calling Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Garforth, and York every 30 minutes, with alternate trains every 60 minutes continuing to Redcar Central/Saltburn calling Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby, Middlesbrough, and Redcar Central/Saltburn.

Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield local every 30 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

You are still missing 2tph semifast services, even though I do like the idea of the fastest services being Newcastle terminators. Hull does need a direct service to Manchester, and it was promised to be 2 tph, so the easiest way should be to run the semi-fasts to Hull.

Huddersfield - Leeds local every 60 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

I fail to see the benefit of the transfer to Northern.

Huddersfield - Wakefield Kirkgate/Castleford/York/wherever local every 60 minutes (for local stations to Leeds, change at Mirfield)

Man Vic (or somewhere west) - Leeds via Hebden Bridge every 60 minutes calling as present to Mirfield, then all stations to Leeds.

These two are as now and shouldn't be problematic.

York - Scarborough shuttle every 30 minutes, calling Malton, Seamer, and Scarborough (also the reopened station between York and Malton if it ever happens).

Why terminate at York? It seems better to run through to Manchester, even though either one of the Scarboroughs or the Saltburn can't run west of York, so it could work to have the second Scar connect off the Saltburn. About the Vic/Picc thing, most should run to Vic, maybe the semi-fasts are the logical ones via Guide Bridge in order to keep a 00/15/30/45 straightforward frequency in the fasts. I'm not really sure, though. What is clear is that Airport services from the Standedge line need to be removed.

Hull - Bradford Interchange via Leeds every 60 minutes calling Brough, Selby, Micklefield/Garforth Parkway (if it opens), Leeds, and Bradford Interchange.

This is pointlessly fast, and Interchange isn't such a good place to terminate services. Anyways, Hull services have to go to Manchester, not Bradford.

For the Hope Valley route, the service pattern would be as follows (again, assuming TRU and no NPR/HS3):

Liverpool Lime Street - Cleethorpes via Scunthorpe every 60 minutes calling Liverpool South Parkway*, Widnes*, Warrington Central*, Birchwood*, Irlam*, Manchester Oxford Road, Man Pic, Stockport, Sheffield, Meadowhall Interchange, Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Barnetby, Habrough, Grimsby Town, and Clethorpes. * If Merseyrail extends from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, and a local Warrington Central - Man Airport is introduced, then this would run via Earlestown instead of Warrington Central, calling Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Eccles (for Manchester Metrolink), Deansgate, Man Oxford Road, then as above.

Unless there's a new line to Liverpool, it's highly unlikely that the CLC gets moved to all-stops operation. My personal preference is NPR via Bank Quay Low Level and make the CLC 4 tph all-stops, but it's not viable to leave Warrington without any fasts to Manchester/Liverpool.

Liverpool Lime Street - Hull via Doncaster every 60 minutes calling Liverpool South Parkway*, Widnes*, Warrington Central*, Birchwood*, Irlam*, Manchester Oxford Road, Man Pic, Stockport, Sheffield, Meadowhall Interchange, Doncaster, Goole (or Selby), Howden, Brough, and Hull.
* If Merseyrail extends from Hunts Cross to Warrington Central, and a local Warrington Central - Man Airport is introduced, then this would run via Earlestown instead of Warrington Central, calling Earlestown, Newton-le-Willows, Eccles (for Manchester Metrolink), Deansgate, Man Oxford Road, then as above.

I don't really see the point in linking those two services, unless it eases pressure on Sheffield station or some other operational reason. It can accumulate delays quite easily with that route and Hull is faster via Huddersfield.

Manchester Pic - New Mills Central/Sheffield via Bredbury every 30 minutes, calling all stations with extensions every 60 minutes to Sheffield, calling all stations.

A bit slow to Sheffield if it's all-stops to NMC, but okay.

Manchester Pic - Nottingham via Dore South Curve every 60 minutes calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, Dore & Totley*, Chesterfield, Alfreton, Toton Interchange (for HS2 and Nottingham Trams), Beeston, and Nottingham. Alternatively after Chesterfield, it could call Belper, Derby, Long Eaton, Beeston, and Nottingham. * Unsure if there was ever a platform on the South Curve or not.

I don't really think there's the capacity or the demand for it, just run it reversing at Sheffield and a semi-fast (for 3 tph) instead of the Hull.

Liverpool - York would still be every 30 minutes, with Stalybridge - York being every 15 minutes over that common section of route.

Liverpool - Man Pic would still be every 30 minutes, as would Man Pic - Sheffield via Stockport. This would result in the Cleethorpes taking over the limited stop Northern service west of Pic, the East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich split (with the Liverpool - Sheffield section transferring to TPE and continuing to Hull), with both the Northern Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley running to Nottingham every 30 minutes (one of those would take over the Sheffield - Nottingham section of the split Liverpool - Norwich).

Manchester - Chesterfield and Nottingham would still maintain a direct train every 60 minutes by running via Dore South Curve.

 

[nr758123]

Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield local every 30 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

It really doesn't matter whose livery is on the outside of the train. What matters to me, as a resident and a passenger, is that it runs every 30 minutes and is reliable and punctual. At the moment it's with TPE because (feel free to correct me if this is no longer the case) only Class 185s have the performance characteristics to keep to timings between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

What I would like to see, provided that it can be done without risking the same level of unreliability which occurred in the May 2018 timetable, is at least some of these trains being linked to the Huddersfield-Leeds locals so as to maintain through services from the Colne Valley stations to Leeds.

Of course it would be much easier to make sense of what will become possible if the scope of TRU was known.

 

[Watershed]

What I would like to see, provided that it can be done without risking the same level of unreliability which occurred in the May 2018 timetable, is at least some of these trains being linked to the Huddersfield-Leeds locals so as to maintain through services from the Colne Valley stations to Leeds.

Unfortunately linking up such services is inherently a transmitter (even if not necessarily a cause) of unreliability. Having a combined Manchester-Leeds stopper was part of the problem.

With the Hull service stopping at the local stations west of Huddersfield all day, 7 days a week once the MRTF timetable is in force, that situation will be ameliorated in a lot of ways.

 

[Bevan Price]

No solution can be perfect for everyone, and don't forget that soon there will (or may) be no TP or Northern - there will be whoever DfT selects as contract operator for that part of the network. And on previous history, DfT will probably make a mess of it. With Treasury also involved, and a post-Covid desire to cut spending, we should be prepared for less frequent services than we might like.

So, I think we will be lucky to get more than hourly stopping services for much of the Manchester / Leeds route, maybe with a few peak extras.
I see little early prospect of getting 3 fast trains per hour over the Hope Valley route.
And Liverpool to Manchester "fasts" may remain hourly for longer than we might wish.

Ideally, Manchester - Leeds - York & Hull ought to be electrified, but the 2040s now seem more likely than the 2030s.

 

[YorksLad12]

It really doesn't matter whose livery is on the outside of the train. What matters to me, as a resident and a passenger, is that it runs every 30 minutes and is reliable and punctual. At the moment it's with TPE because (feel free to correct me if this is no longer the case) only Class 185s have the performance characteristics to keep to timings between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

I thought it was because only TPE have class 185 sets. In the franchise agreements of 2016 the Leeds-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers were to transfer from Northern to TPE during the electrification work that should have started by then and linked to form a sixth semi-fast Leeds-Manchester service. The work obviously hasn't happened but the transfer did because it was in the franchise agreement, even though there was no reason to and the semi-fast was soon split back into two.

Which is one of the things I hate about public transport; the desire to plough on regardless in the face of the facts on the ground. Happens with buses as well, for lost mileage reasons.

 

[Neptune]

At the moment it's with TPE because (feel free to correct me if this is no longer the case) only Class 185s have the performance characteristics to keep to timings between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

You’ve obviously never been on a 195. Their acceleration is on a par with the 185’s.

Once GBR take over fully with their concessions in place of the franchise the operator map may look different in a few years.

Less is more shall we say.

 

[nr758123]

You’ve obviously never been on a 195. Their acceleration is on a par with the 185’s.

Thanks. You're quite right, I have yet to travel on a 195. Travel beyond a fairly small area between home and workplace has been pretty limited for the past 18 months.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I thought it was because only TPE have class 185 sets. In the franchise agreements of 2016 the Leeds-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Manchester stoppers were to transfer from Northern to TPE during the electrification work that should have started by then and linked to form a sixth semi-fast Leeds-Manchester service. The work obviously hasn't happened but the transfer did because it was in the franchise agreement, even though there was no reason to and the semi-fast was soon split back into two.

Which is one of the things I hate about public transport; the desire to plough on regardless in the face of the facts on the ground. Happens with buses as well, for lost mileage reasons.

One of the problems with the 2016-2018 changes was that the "left hand" (DfT infrastructure bods, Network Rail, PTEs etc.) didn't seem to know what the "right hand" (DfT franchising team, Franchisees, ROSCOs) was doing. In theory, bringing stuff under GBR should make upgrades run more smoothly. In practice on the other hand...

 

[LittleAH]

You’ve obviously never been on a 195. Their acceleration is on a par with the 185’s.

Once GBR take over fully with their concessions in place of the franchise the operator map may look different in a few years.

Less is more shall we say.

There's literally no indication that with GBR there'll be less operators. All there'll be is more efficiency in moving some aspects under one umbrella and maybe less duplication of services - although there's more risk of what some are calling the LNER great train robbery...

 

[nr758123]

Unfortunately linking up such services is inherently a transmitter (even if not necessarily a cause) of unreliability. Having a combined Manchester-Leeds stopper was part of the problem.

With the Hull service stopping at the local stations west of Huddersfield all day, 7 days a week once the MRTF timetable is in force, that situation will be ameliorated in a lot of ways.

Hence the caveat about whether TRU will enable it to be done without re-introducing the same performance risk which caused it to be split in December 2018. The problem is, and always has been, that the scope, timing and outputs of TRU remain unknown. How can we know what is possible or realistic until we know what TRU will look like when and if it is completed?

I agree that the MRTF timetable ameliorates the situation for now, but that's a different discussion on another thread, about what can be done within the existing infrastructure constraints. I thought this thread was started in order to discuss what service patterns would become possible once TRU happens.

 

[Austriantrain]

Still no decision published? They must surely be in serious danger of running out of time!

Saying that, and judging by the comments on this thread (which no doubt reflect the challenges the planners face) wouldn't it be better for a further 6 months delay than to get the wrong answer again?

All the problems being faced seem to me to be as a result of previous stupid decisions - decisions taken at the time which were (as one poster said above, sorry forgot who) going to solve the Manchester problems forever.

We need one main station in Manchester to stop unnecessary differing destinations of service and save money. Great! Let's close Central and reduce capacity at Oxford Road as we can run more to platforms 13 / 14 and use Picc/Vic link instead. We can also close Exchange and concentrate at Victoria.

Oh that's not worked. And there's no Picc-Vic link anymore. No problem! Metrolink's coming online soon which will deal with interchanges we can't move, and for the rest let's build a "Windsor Link" to move them to Piccadilly.

Oh that's not worked. Don't you worry! Now we have Metrolink, we can move more services to Piccadilly (if I were so inclined I could call it some kind of unpronounceable German name Hauptoffkbahn or something). Victoria can then be scaled back and made more standardised with better reliability as a purely local station. We can also release mega funds by selling off un-needed and unused station space to build an Arena.

But trains are still crowded in the peak. And now we have a new airport link we paid ££££ for. Just the solution! We'll just shift as much as we possibly can squeeze onto 13/14 and then onto the airport. And for everything else, we'll route it into Piccadilly and reverse it.

But trains are still crowded. And now every man and their dog is demanding direct services to Manchester Airport. Never fret! Let's just build an "Ordsall Curve" at a cost of ££££££, so that we can shove even more services through 13/14 on to the airport. That'll sort it.

It hasn't though. It's made it worse. And now we have three, five and six car sets that are always late, mess up the paths and end up with cancellations. Don't be so negative! All we need to do is re-write the timetable and issue a new franchise agreement with promises of yet more direct trains to the airport. Arriva say they can deliver it.

And we are now where we are, because of all the previous radical suggestions that wereS going to sort everything, but didn't.

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.

Since I wrote this last post in the "main thread" (which I follow because of my interest in timetabling) and I enjoyed reading the rather sarcastic post of domcoop7, just a few thoughts on how this discussion would probably run in other European countries (and yes; it is speculation, so the speculative thread seems appropriate; and yes, it is also crayonista; and no, it is definitely not meant to tell anyone off, much rather I would like to know where I go wrong so would enjoy any form of comment or criticism). And as an aside: I am for option C, because of its regular intervals (coming from a "Takt-country", obviously).

As I said, the UK seems prone to less-than-comprehensive investments. I can't remember how often I read about the necessity of platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly, but I still do not see how they would be useful. As I understand the timetables, it seems to me that the capacity restrictions come at least as much, if not more, from all those flat junctions beginning at Slade Lane all the Way to Miles Platting. If all of those junctions were grade-separated, 15 or 16 trains/hour on platforms 13/14 shouldn't be an issue, even if some of them are delay-prone longer-distance trains with end-door vehicles. As long as the flat junctions remain, I think that platform 15+16 would actually worsen the situation, because once they are built, there would be huge pressure to run more trains, and the junctions would not cope with them. Even four-tracking the entire Castlefield corridor would not help if the junctions are not grade-separated; and grada-separation would probably require a railway line on two levels. I cannot imagine the good people of Manchester would approve...

I also do not think that HS2 and even a "serious" NPR will help. Obviously, most long-distance trains would move there, but I cannot imagine the number of trains on the classic network around Manchester will be reduced by much: On one hand, a lot of long-distance trains will probably remain (eg, since there will be no connection from HS2 at Birmingham towards Bristol, there will probably still be XC trains from Manchester to the South; Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds will still need to be served by fast trains if NPR does not run via Huddersfield, fast Manchester - Liverpool services via Chat Moss will still be useful because running via the Airport will probably be slower). On the other hand, based on experiences elsewhere, timteable slots vacated by long-distance trains will rapidly fill up with "interregional" trains.

So what would I do:
- Option 1 (which is quite crayonista and certainly not possible for several reasons which I would love to hear about): Run all trains from the Bolton and most from the Chat Moss lines to Victoria and then - if they don't continue towards Rochdale or Stalybridge - have them continue eastwards, over a new flyover somewhere between Victoria and Miles Platting, then on the Philips Park - Ashbury line, rebuild the connection at Ardwick towards Piccadilly and build additional platforms there (together with the HS2 terminal, if necessary on two levels - expensive, but if built at the same time, probably feasible). The Windsor link and its complications when crossing Chat Moss and then over the junctions onto Castlefield would be replaced by this link and ease operations on Castlefield; the journey to Piccadilly would be somewhat longer, but direct connections would be maintained; ending trains coming from the West at Victoria would no longer be necessary. The Castlefield corridor would mainly be used by trains via the Ordsall Chord and CLC trains and probably some from Chat Moss.
- Option 2 (very very crayonista and probably what the Swiss would do): Build a Tunnel. Really. Maybe even four-tracked. Underground station at Piccadilly, and then onwards to Salford Central, connected at the Western end to the Chat Moss and Bolton lines, on the Piccadilly end towards Ashbury and the Stockport line (in tunnel at least until Slade lane junction, so you have six tracks from Piccadilly to there). Castlefield would then be purely for "S-Bahn"-style trains coming from the Ordsall chord and the CLC (there might be faster trains from the CLC also, but maybe at that point they would be replaced by an HS2/NPR-service Liverpool - Warrington - MIA - Piccadilly).

To come back on topic of this speculative thread, with option 2 (provided they cannot completely be replaced by NPR) Liverpool - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds trains would run via Chat Moss - Manchester City tunnel - Piccadilly - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge).

As I said, probably all bad ideas, but very intereted in feedback.

 

[YorksLad12]

One of the problems with the 2016-2018 changes was that the "left hand" (DfT infrastructure bods, Network Rail, PTEs etc.) didn't seem to know what the "right hand" (DfT franchising team, Franchisees, ROSCOs) was doing. In theory, bringing stuff under GBR should make upgrades run more smoothly. In practice on the other hand...

I mostly agree, except that the PTEs provided the staff and experience to Rail North which co-specified and co-judged the franchise awards.

In any project there's a best possible path. That's the path Network Rail use when you ask them when they'll have finished building a station by, and people belive them despite experience of previous NR projects. Better to say something will take 24 months and then deliver in 18 than the other way around, in my experience (plus people think I'm a miracle worker!)

Back on topic: as I understand it the post-TRU service patterns have been drawn up (in outline, if not in detail); so it's an odd discussion to have given that whatever happens from December 2021 or May 2022 will go out of the window shortly afterwards when the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe work begins.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I mostly agree, except that the PTEs provided the staff and experience to Rail North which co-specified and co-judged the franchise awards.

In any project there's a best possible path. That's the path Network Rail use when you ask them when they'll have finished building a station by, and people belive them despite experience of previous NR projects. Better to say something will take 24 months and then deliver in 18 than the other way around, in my experience (plus people think I'm a miracle worker!)

Back on topic: as I understand it the post-TRU service patterns have been drawn up (in outline, if not in detail); so it's an odd discussion to have given that whatever happens from December 2021 or May 2022 will go out of the window shortly afterwards when the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe work begins.

We still have the problem of different stakeholders wanting different things though. A prime example of this is the White Rose/Cottingley debacle, but there are already threads discussing that. Ideally there would be a body responsible for deciding what gets done, and filtering out the aspirations (such as White Rose station) that just cause more unnecessary problems.

 

[daodao]

My suggested service pattern would be as follows (assuming TRU and no Northern Powerhouse):

Liverpool Lime Street - Newcastle Central calling St Helens Junction, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Micklefield, York, Darlington Bank Top, Durham, and Newcastle Central every 30 minutes.

Manchester Piccadilly (train shed) - York calling Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Garforth, and York every 30 minutes, with alternate trains every 60 minutes continuing to Redcar Central/Saltburn calling Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Thornaby, Middlesbrough, and Redcar Central/Saltburn.

Manchester Victoria - Huddersfield local every 30 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

Huddersfield - Leeds local every 60 minutes calling all stations, and transferred back to Northern.

Huddersfield - Wakefield Kirkgate/Castleford/York/wherever local every 60 minutes (for local stations to Leeds, change at Mirfield)

Man Vic (or somewhere west) - Leeds via Hebden Bridge every 60 minutes calling as present to Mirfield, then all stations to Leeds.

Overall, a sensible proposal for the passenger train services on the ex-LNW Manchester-Leeds line. However, the Manchester-Hull service appears to have been removed. I would suggest the following amendments to the express services:

1. Liverpool Lime Street - York calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and York every 30 minutes, then extending alternately to:
   - Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester-le-Street and Newcastle
   - Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Thornaby and Middlesbrough
   These services should be operated by the ECML franchise using Hitachi class 802 bimodes.
   
   
2. Manchester Piccadilly (train shed) - Leeds calling at Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Leeds every 30 minutes, then extending alternately to:
   - York, Haxby, Malton, Seamer and Scarborough
   - Selby, Howden, Brough and Hull
   These services should be operated by the Northern franchise using Class 185 dmus.

I would abolish the TPE franchise with services being re-allocated as follows:

• Anglo-Scottish services via Preston/Carlisle transferred to WCML franchise
• Liverpool-Newcastle/Middlesbrough services transferred to ECML franchise
• Manchester-Hull/Scarborough services and local stopping services to/from Huddersfield transferred to Northern franchise
• Manchester-Cleethorpes services transferred to East Midlands franchise

It is highly desirable to remove services from the Standedge line running via the Ordsall curve and making profligate use of Manchester station capacity.

 

[Neptune]

I would abolish the TPE franchise with services being re-allocated as follows:

All franchises are being abolished so that’s a definite.

 

[daodao]

All franchises are being abolished so that’s a definite.

Independent franchises as currently understood will be abolished. However, there will still be tranches of service groups put out to tender, for which private companies will tender for the opportunity to run them to strictly defined specifications, like the franchised London bus network. I am effectively proposing the abolition of TPE as a stand-alone service group.

 

[Neptune]

Independent franchises as currently understood will be abolished. However, there will still be tranches of service groups put out to tender, for which private companies will tender for the opportunity to run them to strictly defined specifications, like the franchised London bus network. I am effectively proposing the abolition of TPE as a stand-alone service group.

I’m not denying that but you used the word franchise which is what is being abolished

Personally speaking and I know it’s not popular amongst many posters on here but I still believe that TPE & Northern should be as one to create a harmonised network for the so called Northern Powerhouse. I don’t go with the Pennine split idea (because that’s how it was before 2004 etc…) because if we’re trying to level up the north then it needs to be as one. If it was split then it would undoubtably end up with one side playing off against the other which is good for nobody.

All this rubbish about “but that means 150’s on TPE services” is ridiculous because you can keep the depot groups separate meaning for instance Hull TPE depot crews retain knowledge of only their routes and traction as do Hull Northern depot etc… The same applies to Newcastle, York, Sheffield, Piccadilly etc… This is what has happened at Barrow & Blackpool North (although obviously traction has merged with removal of 185’s from their routes which wouldn’t happen with core TPE services).

 

[RHolmes]

My suggested service pattern would be as follows (assuming TRU and no Northern Powerhouse):

Liverpool Lime Street - Newcastle Central calling St Helens Junction

St Helens junction is not an ideal choice for trains on the chat moss line. The station itself is in poor condition due to its age (including the platform surfaces) and is on the very outskirts of the town with most of its easterly and southern sides essentially being farmland.

Lea Green has been chosen by St Helens council as it has greater road connections to/from most of the southern St Helens towns as well as Rainhill, Widnes, Cronton, St Helens Linkway and the M62.

It’s also due to be extended and modernised including a two-story car park and improved passenger facilities in 2022

 

[YorksLad12]

I’m not denying that but you used the word franchise which is what is being abolished

Personally speaking and I know it’s not popular amongst many posters on here but I still believe that TPE & Northern should be as one to create a harmonised network for the so called Northern Powerhouse. I don’t go with the Pennine split idea (because that’s how it was before 2004 etc…) because if we’re trying to level up the north then it needs to be as one. If it was split then it would undoubtably end up with one side playing off against the other which is good for nobody.

All this rubbish about “but that means 150’s on TPE services” is ridiculous because you can keep the depot groups separate meaning for instance Hull TPE depot crews retain knowledge of only their routes and traction as do Hull Northern depot etc… The same applies to Newcastle, York, Sheffield, Piccadilly etc… This is what has happened at Barrow & Blackpool North (although obviously traction has merged with removal of 185’s from their routes which wouldn’t happen with core TPE services).

I take your point about merging; we would have had three types of service across two operators in TPE, Northern Connect (semi-fasts) and Northern. But I would rather have broken out the Northern Connect services with dedicated livery, units and levels of service. In the Brave New World you could do this by merging the Northern and TPE contracts (which is what Rail North Ltd. wanted anyway) but then breaking out service types.

Fine in theory but then you have to take depot locations and allocations in consideration as well; the 802s live in Scotland, the 150s shouldn't be on the Leeds-Sheffield semi-fasts, for example. Definitely not an east-west split (off-topically, the north east is self contained I think apart from the Newcastle-Carlisle service).

 

[nr758123]

Back on topic: as I understand it the post-TRU service patterns have been drawn up (in outline, if not in detail)

Are you able to direct us to a published source which says what these future service patterns will be?

so it's an odd discussion to have given that whatever happens from December 2021 or May 2022 will go out of the window shortly afterwards when the Huddersfield to Ravensthorpe work begins.

Not at all. Speculation is what happens to fill spaces where there's an absence of information.

 

[43074]

1. Liverpool Lime Street - York calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and York every 30 minutes, then extending alternately to:
   - Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester-le-Street and Newcastle
   - Thirsk, Northallerton, Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Thornaby and Middlesbrough
   These services should be operated by the ECML franchise using Hitachi class 802 bimodes.
   
   
2. Manchester Piccadilly (train shed) - Leeds calling at Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Leeds every 30 minutes, then extending alternately to:
   - York, Haxby, Malton, Seamer and Scarborough
   - Selby, Howden, Brough and Hull
   These services should be operated by the Northern franchise using Class 185 dmus.

Splitting the fast Leeds to Manchester service between two Manchester stations and again between two TOCs is nonsense, for what benefit? Why lose an every 15 minute service between Leeds and Manchester which is competitive with the M62 and coaches on the corridor.

I would run the Scarborough/Hull services from the bay platforms at Victoria, and keep all trains between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield with the same TOC at the very least. You just have a vendetta against TPE and would rather the North's railways remain stuck in 1987 it would seem.

 

[daodao]

Splitting the fast Leeds to Manchester service between two Manchester stations and again between two TOCs is nonsense, for what benefit? Why lose an every 15 minute service between Leeds and Manchester which is competitive with the M62 and coaches on the corridor.

I would run the Scarborough/Hull services from the bay platforms at Victoria, and keep all trains between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield with the same TOC at the very least. You just have a vendetta against TPE and would rather the North's railways remain stuck in 1987 it would seem.

The bay platforms at Victoria can only accommodate 4 car trains. Running the Leeds semi-fasts into Piccadilly enhances connectivity to South Manchester/Airport/Cheshire and beyond, given that the proposal envisages removal of Standedge line services to the Airport via the Castlefield line. Providing a 30 minute frequency on longer distance regional/intercity services should be adequate. As pointed out by above, the current franchises will shortly cease to exist as independent operators, and therefore it is more logical to group services together as regional/local or intercity, and assign them via the tender process to suitable companies to run the services.

 

[YorksLad12]

Are you able to direct us to a published source which says what these future service patterns will be?

Er... no. I thought I had, but page 43 of https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...bined Cases Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 (the Do Minimum option) says 4 fast York-Manchester; I thought one of the fasts was from Hull, so that's my misremembering (or they're changed it since then and I can't find a reference). The Do Something option says that by it might be possible to remove some of the calls on the semi-fast to Hull, which would make it faster - one assumes.

Not at all. Speculation is what happens to fill spaces where there's an absence of information.

Oh, absolutely (as I might have just proven).

 

[Bevan Price]

St Helens junction is not an ideal choice for trains on the chat moss line. The station itself is in poor condition due to its age (including the platform surfaces) and is on the very outskirts of the town with most of its easterly and southern sides essentially being farmland.

Lea Green has been chosen by St Helens council as it has greater road connections to/from most of the southern St Helens towns as well as Rainhill, Widnes, Cronton, St Helens Linkway and the M62.

It’s also due to be extended and modernised including a two-story car park and improved passenger facilities in 2022

I would disagree about St. Helens Junction. Yes, the main building needs attention, but the platforms are more spacious than those at Lea Green, and they are not located in a bleak windswept cutting. In addition, a large housing estate is currently being built on the south side of the line.

Ideally, the line to St. Helens Central should be reopened and receive a passenger service to Manchester, but I don't see finance for that becoming available for many years (if ever).

 

[RHolmes]

I would disagree about St. Helens Junction. Yes, the main building needs attention, but the platforms are more spacious than those at Lea Green, and they are not located in a bleak windswept cutting. In addition, a large housing estate is currently being built on the south side of the line.

The location of Lea Green is much better situated (although not perfect) and that’s really what matters to attract passengers both local and further afield, as stated it’s location close to the M62 is perfect for merseysiders, Halton residents and people connecting from the M57 (at Huyton Circle - the next junction)

Passengers can still connect to TPE services from either NLW or LEG from St Helens junction

I’ve just bought a house between the two stations (it’s technically shorter for me to head to St Helens Jn) and would choose Lea Green any day out of the two, both the station at St Helens Junction and the local area are not the nicest places to be, and again are on the outer circumference of the town. This is the reason St Helens council, merseytravel and TPE chose LEG instead and a wise decision it was too.

I look forward to the rebuilding next year and it’s effects on passenger growth

 

[Bevan Price]

The location of Lea Green is much better situated (although not perfect) and that’s really what matters to attract passengers both local and further afield, as stated it’s location close to the M62 is perfect for merseysiders, Halton residents and people connecting from the M57 (at Huyton Circle - the next junction)

Passengers can still connect to TPE services from either NLW or LEG from St Helens junction

I’ve just bought a house between the two stations (it’s technically shorter for me to head to St Helens Jn) and would choose Lea Green any day out of the two, both the station at St Helens Junction and the local area are not the nicest places to be, and again are on the outer circumference of the town. This is the reason St Helens council, merseytravel and TPE chose LEG instead and a wise decision it was too.

I look forward to the rebuilding next year and it’s effects on passenger growth

We will have to agree to disagree. I have never found St. Helens Jn area particularly unpleasant, and I been using it ever since the line from St. Helens Shaw St. (as it was) closed to passengers. I have also used Lea Green - it is O,K., but it is my understanding that the rebuilding will mainly affect the "car park level", with few, if any, changes at platform level. I am also uneasy about the car park changes. Yes, more parking space is needed , but multi-level car parks can be distinctly unpleasant, especially at night. Also, I wonder if they might use the new car park as an excuse to introduce parking charges. One alternative might be to make the parking free for rail users only, and introduce fees for those working elsewhere, especially the nearby school.

The other problem I have with Lea Green is that TP was too prone to cancelling trains (pre-Covid), and several times I have found myself stuck at Manchester Victoria, but with insufficient time to catch one of the stopping trains to Lea Green because those mostly use Piccadilly & Oxford Road.