Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Personally (I've said before) I think Dec 2008 balanced capacity and performance reasonably well. And yes, you need all the supporting acts to contribute too - you do not build infrastructure just to cover for other operational "sloppiness".
I think at this point "how to serve Hazel Grove" then becomes a separate "question" to Castlefield, once it is split off from the corridor, hence why the report becomes slightly silent on it.
It is a separate question in a way however it is also pointed out that Buxton going back to 2tph is likely. There's also heavy focus on the stakeholders from south kg Hazel Grove who responded, for some reason. In other words contradicting that implication.
Pre-Chord; the timetable was reasonably robust; it didn't particularly need additional infrastructure capability over and above what it already had. It had enough so that delay could be recovered. You need enough capability for recovery, but not excessive amounts (as per the UIC-406 capacity standard).
This new timetable has been built around the voices of Manchester that helped design it, focused on cutting delays on Manchester’s railways and boosting punctuality.
Our plan for rail sets out our commitment to putting passengers first when it comes to our rail network. The work we are doing to fix Manchester’s railways, which were bursting at the seams pre-pandemic, is all part of us building back better from COVID-19.
Liam Robinson, Chair of the Rail North Committee, representing Northern leaders on the task force, said:
This part of the network is the buckle in the belt of the North’s rail network. It has to be able to do its job. The interim service solution in this consultation is, inevitably a compromise, but it allows us the chance to run more reliable services until the task force can deliver on infrastructure solutions to enable the network to run as it needs to.
What’s important is that we now have a commitment from government and the rail industry to develop and deliver a railmap which will enable us to build back services in a smarter and more intelligent way and provide an exit strategy from the temporary timetable we need in the interim.
Louise Gittins, Interim Chair of Transport for the North, said:
While rail travel has been significantly suppressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, all our data suggests that in a relatively short time this rail corridor will, once again, be under severe pressure unless we take action now.
Pre-Chord; the timetable was reasonably robust; it didn't particularly need additional infrastructure capability over and above what it already had. It had enough so that delay could be recovered. You need enough capability for recovery, but not excessive amounts (as per the UIC-406 capacity standard).
I have to agree, Pre 2018 I had maybe 1 in 10 Seamer - 'Some place in and around/via Manchester' journeys disrupted, after that change it was maybe 1 in 3, and some months closer to 1 in 2 journeys bad enough to collect delay repay As an added 'benefit' many journey times were longer, and often involved an extra change.
What still amazes me is that something like that change could get through all the hoops and no one say 'This is going to be a disaster' It was predicted on here, there were even obvious errors in the timetabling like 2 trains arriving at the single Malton platform within 3 minutes of each other, from opposite directions, which were going to cause delay.
I have colleagues who live in Southport who I have regular arguments with. Why do you NEED a service down Castlefield? Because that is where all our jobs are. Okay but you work from home now? As do a lot of high salary jobs in that area (well the ones who commute to Manchester anyway). But we want a direct service for when we go in. Okay, why cant you change at Bolton or Salford or get the tram from Victoria or walk the 15 minutes from Victoria? Well because its not fair, in London they have an amazing transport network, why should we compromise because the north doesn't get investment? You are aware in London that people change trains and walk all the time to get to their final destination? Yeah but that is different.
At which point I give up.
I feel for those that live on the Southport line but I feel they are pandered to at the expense of others, but I suppose as we have said. You can't listen to those who are silent!
I have to agree, Pre 2018 I had maybe 1 in 10 Seamer - 'Some place in and around/via Manchester' journeys disrupted, after that change it was maybe 1 in 3, and some months closer to 1 in 2 journeys bad enough to collect delay repay As an added 'benefit' many journey times were longer, and often involved an extra change.
What still amazes me is that something like that change could get through all the hoops and no one say 'This is going to be a disaster' It was predicted on here, there were even obvious errors in the timetabling like 2 trains arriving at the single Malton platform within 3 minutes of each other, from opposite directions, which were going to cause delay.
My own view is that the December 2017 timetable is one of the best the North West has had, because it included Sunday enhancements like 2tph on the Atherton line and Monday - Saturday 2tph Blackburn - Manchester via Darwen all day. However, since then, the full 2tph between Lancaster and Manchester has been provided for example, so things in general have certainly moved on.
While I support building all of HS2 it isn't comparable - the main benefits are gained by taking the fast services off the WCML south of Rugby. The other benefits are good but less good. The effects of Ordsall without the Castlefield work have been overwhelmingly negative.
What happened with Ordsall is more like if HS2 was being cut back to Birmingham-Crewe.
Fair point - the chord did actually make things worse in terms of capacity, something HS2 will be doing the opposite of regardless of the amount that gets completed beyond Birmingham. I guess it is that, without completion of the full project, we are leaving lots of potential on the table, similar to how the Ordsall chord carries very few services.
I do feel like Arriva were a fall guy so the Government didn't have to admit Northern's failings were also on them, in that Castlefield upgrades being mothballed exacerbated the problems.
Ultimately a lot of this is down to the government not investing in the infrastructure needed to deliver the service that they require the franchises provide. Alongside this, rolling stock procurement is nickle and dimed so that on day one, it is already at capacity, as with many of the diesel CAF units on Northern now. (Great trains in my opinion, just way too few of them.)
Arriva Rail North cheaped out on a lot of things, but I'd agree with you that this mess cannot be attributed to them. Realistically the Ordsall chord was always going to be a white elephant without the Castlefield infrastructure improvements, and without sufficient electrification to allow high-performance EMUs to operate the majority of services.
Yes, and we saw how electrification really helped on the Manchester-Bolton/Blackpool corridor, even when it was knackered old 319s being cascaded on to it! With 331's, the service is markedly better.
To be fair as well, Japan does invest a decent amount in resilient infrastructure to avoid cascading delays. A lot of what prevents delays is planning around what happens if a delay occurs in the first place.
So really the best option is to build infrastructure that can manage some delayed services without it cascading across the network!
I have colleagues who live in Southport who I have regular arguments with. Why do you NEED a service down Castlefield? Because that is where all our jobs are. Okay but you work from home now? As do a lot of high salary jobs in that area (well the ones who commute to Manchester anyway). But we want a direct service for when we go in. Okay, why cant you change at Bolton or Salford or get the tram from Victoria or walk the 15 minutes from Victoria? Well because its not fair, in London they have an amazing transport network, why should we compromise because the north doesn't get investment? You are aware in London that people change trains and walk all the time to get to their final destination? Yeah but that is different.
To be fair to them it is different. Changing in London isn't painful because services are generally very frequent. You can just bet, the UK being the UK, that the connection at Bolton/Salford would be poor, because we just don't think about these things.
If the consultation had included timetables, showing a wait of 5* minutes in both directions, which would mean a convenient one-change journey to Castlefield twice an hour rather than once direct, you might have been able to sell it better. (The tram is a bit moot as it results in a significant journey time increase - the key is that you are providing an upgrade - 2tph of connections and a similar journey time - and not just a downgrade which anyone will complain about).
Indeed, one of the most disappointing omission from the consultation is the actual timetables, which make a huge difference. Having it both in PDF form and in the form of a journey planner so people could see real-world impact would have allowed it to much better inform and for the results to be much more useful.
Actually overall this is a missed opportunity to consider a Nord-West-Takt and not only sort out capacity on Castlefield but also quality connections. The North West's rail network is a web with multiple demands very much like Nederlandse Spoorwegen - the opportunity has been missed - potentially for years - to plan for it to work like that.
* Or whatever the minimum connection time is at Salford Cres/Bolton.
So will be happen to the direct liverpool to manchester airport via CLC is that still being “replaced” by the new TPE sheffield service? Also will the stopping service from Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road be retained? Thanks
So will be happen to the direct liverpool to manchester airport via CLC is that still being “replaced” by the new TPE sheffield service? Also will the stopping service from Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road be retained? Thanks
The two services will be merged, so you will have a Liverpool-Cleethorpes instead of a Liverpool-Airport and Piccadilly-Cleethorpes.
There will still be 1 stopping train per hour Liverpool-Oxford Road, but due to Southport's lobbying the second tph will only run Liverpool-Warrington Central.
The Liverpool-Nottingham/Norwich and Liverpool-Cleethorpes will inevitably have to pick up some additional stops along the CLC to compensate for this - that will in turn reduce their capacity for long distance passengers, as well as the turnaround time (and hence reliability). Journey times will also be increased.
Unfortunately so. They could have had 2tph Wigan - Bolton - Manchester Victoria - Stalybridge but fluffed it and send one of them to Manchester Oxford Road instead.
As a result, the Wigan - Golborne - Manchester Oxford Road - Hazel Grove has been binned.
Once again we have a station proposal with capital funding but no suitable service. Same as East Linton, Reston and Soham. We have got to stop doing this. It's unconscionable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think this remains unclear. If both Sheffield - Liverpool services call at Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood, 1tph stopper might have been OK. Sucks if you use Flixton though.
The greater cost is the loss of the extra slot for the Wigan North Western - Hazel Grove.
Particularly re the nonsense of some of the new stations that have been built (I've argued a few times that East Midlands Parkway could have worked well if it opened when the EMR 810s come into operation and the MML timetable is recast - building it at a time when Stagecoach were forced to try to accommodate calls with the limited standard class capacity than a four/five coach 222 had meant that there was little scope to provide more than a token service, which was very unattractive to motorists on the M1 (would you time your journey down the motorway knowing that there were 45 minute gaps for London bound services and gaps of sixty minutes if you wanted to get to Derby?)
Exactly; the document apparently bases a lot of its justifications on the percentage of respondents supporting a given outcome. Given how unrepresentative the respondents are - let alone how many questions were left unanswered - you could hardly have picked a worse data source if you tried.
It's blatantly obvious that a few hundred people from Southport (likely cajoled through the local RUG or MP) have basically steamrollered over anyone else's interests.
There is simply no way that the comparitively low volume of passengers from Southport to Castlefield (the document suggests a figure of 791 people, presumably per day) justifies sacrificing a second train per hour for the local CLC stations, or a second train per hour to the Airport for the much larger flow from York/Leeds/Huddersfield (2093 people per day).
Yes, of course they would be inconvenienced without a direct train to Castlefield. But at least they have the option of making a same or opposite platform change at Salford Crescent or Bolton - that luxury simply doesn't exist if you live near one of the CLC shacks that's losing half its service.
I suppose democracy really is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried
I guess it's an insight into a lot of Government/ politics - an organised noisy minority will often get their way because others are too quiet/ disorganised to stand their ground
I think at this point "how to serve Hazel Grove" then becomes a separate "question" to Castlefield, once it is split off from the corridor, hence why the report becomes slightly silent on it.
re the above two posts - I'm conflicted between "two trains to Buxton sounds good, at least once passenger numbers have recovered a bit more" and "really not wanting to go back to the days when the Hazel Grove line only saw one EMU a week, which is what would happen if all of the services stopping there were Buxton trains"
True, but I'd have hoped that those in charge would have paid more attention to the quantifiable passenger data, showing how many people are travelling between different points
I don't blame Southport people for being so protective of their preferred route - I'm unhappy with the people who've capitulated to an organised noisy minority
I have colleagues who live in Southport who I have regular arguments with. Why do you NEED a service down Castlefield? Because that is where all our jobs are. Okay but you work from home now? As do a lot of high salary jobs in that area (well the ones who commute to Manchester anyway). But we want a direct service for when we go in. Okay, why cant you change at Bolton or Salford or get the tram from Victoria or walk the 15 minutes from Victoria? Well because its not fair, in London they have an amazing transport network, why should we compromise because the north doesn't get investment? You are aware in London that people change trains and walk all the time to get to their final destination? Yeah but that is different.
At which point I give up.
I feel for those that live on the Southport line but I feel they are pandered to at the expense of others, but I suppose as we have said. You can't listen to those who are silent!
Good points - I think that people up here forget that the service from most stations in south east England is only to one London terminal rather than a choice (obviously there are a few exceptions, and a few junctions, but it's a lot "cleaner" than the mess of services around Manchester, given the comparative sizes)
We've indulged the Southport campaigners before though, so they'll always feel that they are "special" - it's a shame that this has messed up what could have been a tidier network (e.g. a simple four/hour from Wallgate to Victoria)
You keep on talking about these grand plans, but then have a massive blind spot for the 1998 timetable on the Southport line, which must (apparently) be set in stone!
The two services will be merged, so you will have a Liverpool-Cleethorpes instead of a Liverpool-Airport and Piccadilly-Cleethorpes.
There will still be 1 stopping train per hour Liverpool-Oxford Road, but due to Southport's lobbying the second tph will only run Liverpool-Warrington Central.
The Liverpool-Nottingham/Norwich and Liverpool-Cleethorpes will inevitably have to pick up some additional stops along the CLC to compensate for this - that will in turn reduce their capacity for long distance passengers, as well as the turnaround time (and hence reliability). Journey times will also be increased.
If the plan is for the same operational unit to run both Liverpool - Sheffield services and for them both to be run by the same stock (e.g. six coach 185s) then there's less of an issue (because a westbound ex-Cleethorpes service can become an eastbound service train to Nottingham etc, so there's more scope to accommodate a handful of additional stops - all because Southport passengers are particular about which of the central Manchester stations their trains get to serve, meaning that the link between the cities of Sheffield and Liverpool must be slowed down to accommodate the local stations that would otherwise lose their Manchester trains since the path at Oxford Road has been reserved for Southport trains)
It's a bit like the old lady who swallowed a fly...
You keep on talking about these grand plans, but then have a massive blind spot for the 1998 timetable on the Southport line, which must (apparently) be set in stone!
Ensuring a quality connection for those wishing to go to Castlefield twice an hour is one way that that could be mitigated, though, as I've said multiple times. The omission of actual proposed timetables from the consultation seriously limits its utility - with Southport, a connection to Picc and the Airport off both half hourly services at Salford Crescent with a 5 minute wait in each direction would arguably be an improvement over an hourly service to Oxford Road only. But nothing in the consultation confirms if that is what it would be, or if it'd be 29 minutes. It would also be sensible to look at seeing if you could also accommodate a quality connection to Bolton at Hindley and improve that station as a better connectional node (because same platform is better than walking across Wigan).
Indeed, that would not only improve things for Southport, but also for people on the Atherton line who have never had a quality connection to Castlefield.
As for London, there are plenty of cases of multiple termini, the service is generally actually quite messy, particularly sarf ov da Rivva, and people are quite protective of that, too. Even north of it, you've got St Pancras high level vs. Thameslink, Euston vs. Clapham Jn/East Croydon, Paddington high level vs. Crossrail (at some point), Cambridge to both Liverpool St and Kings Cross, and so on.
Basically we keep shouting "people from X can change trains" without considering quality provision for them to do so.
re the above two posts - I'm conflicted between "two trains to Buxton sounds good, at least once passenger numbers have recovered a bit more" and "really not wanting to go back to the days when the Hazel Grove line only saw one EMU a week, which is what would happen if all of the services stopping there were Buxton trains"
As I've said before, class 769 redeployment to the Buxton services could solve that partially. Of course they're rather slow as it is... And they won't become available in time for next December in any case.
2tph to Buxton all with 150 pairs isn't good, but it isn't so bad.
If the plan is for the same operational unit to run both Liverpool - Sheffield services and for them both to be run by the same stock (e.g. six coach 185s) then there's less of an issue (because a westbound ex-Cleethorpes service can become an eastbound service train to Nottingham etc, so there's more scope to accommodate a handful of additional stops - all because Southport passengers are particular about which of the central Manchester stations their trains get to serve, meaning that the link between the cities of Sheffield and Liverpool must be slowed down to accommodate the local stations that would otherwise lose their Manchester trains since the path at Oxford Road has been reserved for Southport trains)
As I've said before, class 769 redeployment to the Buxton services could solve that partially. Of course they're rather slow as it is... And they won't become available in time for next December in any case.
A reminder that if you wish to discuss "your idea for..." or similar type things there is a thread running in speculative ideas which you can find here.
It's not as narrow as it used to be, almost all the platform buildings were cleared a few years ago. And the very point of the station is as an interchange - not to be hanging around (changing at Bolton is also an alternative in some cases if you want facilities)
But there are also passengers starting their journey there at Salford Crescent (university students springing to mind) who will also be using the platform space and can I ask you what do you think the average waiting time there is for interchange passengers?
How is that a bit grim? 5-car 158s is a step up from the EMT offering of 4-car 158s and in some respects an even bigger step up on the 4-car 156 (or 156+158) that I think I read has come in since EMR took over (I could be wrong on that, it might still be all 158s).
How is that a bit grim? 5-car 158s is a step up from the EMT offering of 4-car 158s and in some respects an even bigger step up on the 4-car 156 (or 156+158) that I think I read has come in since EMR took over (I could be wrong on that, it might still be all 158s).
Same tired 30 year old trains that have had a hard life and have no chance of a mechanical rebuild, same knackered air conditioning/heating, same standard 158 issues.
I was hoping we would get an opportunity to provide a decent Intercity service.
Same tired 30 year old trains that have had a hard life and have no chance of a mechanical rebuild, same knackered air conditioning/heating, same standard 158 issues.
I was hoping we would get an opportunity to provide a decent Intercity service.
Looks like yet another reroll of the traincrew route & traction competence dice at certain Northern depots, with the accompanying necessity of hundreds of days new training, hundreds of days past training all wasted and reliance on overtime continuing for a few more years...
It has probably changed again since - we've not had an updated official traction plan for the Regional routes in a long time despite the original one being known to be bust. We've not been explicitly told the Welsh 170s are coming despite being issued notices about them.
No interest in anything CAF!
Something with first class and modern facilities.
The 158s would need to be fitted with new alternators and a comprehensive rebuild to be anywhere near equivalent and on a 30 year old train in austerity that seems to be very unlikely indeed.
There becomes a point where the cost of seeking punctuality improvements through building more infrastructure results in diminishing returns. Especially if the infrastructure does not solve the root cause of the problem.
I mean (deliberately silly example to illustrate the point); 8 tracking through Castlefield would be amazing for performance, but still may only achieve 98.5% reliability (due to the individual routes). So why not 10 tracking? Etc etc. You have to stop somewhere? Perhaps Option B+ is far enough already?
Operation of railways is about identifying the right level of compromise between connectivity, capacity, performance, journey times, and cost, and targeting this effectively (not "build more infrastructure because that's better than less infrastructure").
AIUI, Network Rail have a seperate workstream at the moment examining what the benefit of 15/16 to capacity and performance actually is (presumably using Option B+ with no enhancement as the starting position). It may prove that just building 15/16 (plus Oxford Road) does very little for further resilience., as the service specification is designed to give enough recovery on the available infrastructure already.
I've just compared Real Time Trains for Manchester Oxford Road with London Blackfriars- no comparison. OK there were lots of 'teething problems' with the latter, but surely it demonstrates a benefit of a well-cordinated regular timetable and short headways.
Also demonstrates thet 'whoever shouts loudest' and 'plays the system' and is well-connected, gets their way and enables 'the railway' to say it has listened to people ... a major risk with so-called 'consultation'.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
www.gov.uk
)
