What should the role of the CLC line be?

[Bletchleyite]

25kV electrification is now planned.

 

[Watershed]

25kV electrification is now planned.

I think it's fair to say there is now an officially expressed intention. But as seen on the MML and GWML, that doesn't necessarily mean that wires will go up at all, or as far as they 'should'.

 

[Gareth]

Ideally, I'd like the slow lines between Edge Hill & Liverpool South Parkway to form part of a mid-capacity metro system with a tunnelled section into central Liverpool.

More realistically, a Liverpool-Crewe service could do with being reinstated. Taking the mid-Cheshire stations off the Liverpool-Birminghams would help speed those services up. It would also help the case for reopening Ditton and the Tarbock/Halewood station Merseytravel wants to see built.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder how much additional infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a half hourly stopper and a half hourly fast train (calling at Warrington and Widnes).

 

[Gareth]

That's pretty much what the CLC had, pre-revolution. Think one of the fasts stopped at Birchwood instead of Widnes though.

 

[yorksrob]

That's pretty much what the CLC had, pre-revolution. Think one of the fasts stopped at Birchwood instead of Widnes though.

I think that's basically what we should be aiming for, but with a more standardized stopping pattern.

 

[Watershed]

I wonder how much additional infrastructure would be needed to accommodate a half hourly stopper and a half hourly fast train (calling at Warrington and Widnes).

Nothing - that's the timetable that is theoretically in place now and which has existed for the last 20 years or however long. However, with diesel timings (particularly Sprinter timings on the stoppers) it requires adding in pathing to the fast and/or skip-stopping on the stoppers.

Electrification should enable both of these issues to be resolved, but much more significant work would be needed to allow more than 2tph fast and 2tph stopping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's pretty much what the CLC had, pre-revolution. Think one of the fasts stopped at Birchwood instead of Widnes though.

The Norwich did Widnes, the TPE did Birchwood.

 

[yorksrob]

Nothing - that's the timetable that is theoretically in place now and which has existed for the last 20 years or however long. However, with diesel timings (particularly Sprinter timings on the stoppers) it requires adding in pathing to the fast and/or skip-stopping on the stoppers.

Electrification should enable both of these issues to be resolved, but much more significant work would be needed to allow more than 2tph fast and 2tph stopping.

Yes, the route is a natural candidate for electrification. Realistically a half-hourly service is perfectly decent for the smaller stations.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, the route is a natural candidate for electrification. Realistically a half-hourly service is perfectly decent for the smaller stations.

A half hourly service within a densely populated metropolitan area is not good enough. It’s like arguing all merseyrail stations should be reduced to 2 tph, because it’s pretty decent. The CLC needs a minimum of 4 tph all stops within Greater Manchester urban area and the same within Merseyside.

 

[yorksrob]

A half hourly service within a densely populated metropolitan area is not good enough. It’s like arguing all merseyrail stations should be reduced to 2 tph, because it’s pretty decent. The CLC needs a minimum of 4 tph all stops within Greater Manchester urban area and the same within Merseyside.

It's a regional route linking two densley populated areas, two large towns and various smaller villages and settlements along the route. Why does it need 4tph all stops ? I live in a densley populated urban area and would love two trains per hour. I would argue that Widnes and Warrington having reasonably fast services to Liverpool and Manchester and beyond is as important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a regional route linking two densley populated areas, two large towns and various smaller villages and settlements along the route. Why does it need 4tph all stops ? I live in a densley populated urban area and would love two trains per hour. I would argue that Widnes and Warrington having reasonably fast services to Liverpool and Manchester and beyond is as important.

One comment I have never heard anywhere other than here about Merseyrail is "can we have 2 fasts and 2 slows instead of 4 slows", even on the longer routes.

Though if doing that I still propose the idea of each train running semi fast one side of Warrington rather than a fast and a slow.

 

[yorksrob]

One comment I have never heard anywhere other than here about Merseyrail is "can we have 2 fasts and 2 slows instead of 4 slows", even on the longer routes.

Though if doing that I still propose the idea of each train running semi fast one side of Warrington rather than a fast and a slow.

By a similar token, I've never heard anyone call for the fast services between Manchester and Liverpool to be replaced by 4 slows. I don't know why people seem to think that the CLC line wants it.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's a regional route linking two densley populated areas, two large towns and various smaller villages and settlements along the route. Why does it need 4tph all stops ? I live in a densley populated urban area and would love two trains per hour. I would argue that Widnes and Warrington having reasonably fast services to Liverpool and Manchester and beyond is as important.

It’s not just a regional route. We are talking about two large cities that has a faster line running parallel, while the suburbs within those cities have poor rail services. The line links two densely populated areas but only their city centres are well served, while the suburbs within those densely populated areas on the Manchester side do not. Th3 problem here is that it only encourages people to use the car and not even contemplate using the train.

People cite stations like Glazebrook as reasons why there shouldn’t be a 4 tph service, but that is missing the point entirely. Irlam, Flixton, Chassen Road, Urmston, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park are all stations in highly built up city areas that should have a far better rail service than 2 tph.

 

[Purple Orange]

By a similar token, I've never heard anyone call for the fast services between Manchester and Liverpool to be replaced by 4 slows. I don't know why people seem to think that the CLC line wants it.

They aren’t being replaced though are they? There will always be fast services between Liverpool & Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

Well there is a better route from Manchester-Liverpool, and an acceptable route for Warrington-Manchester (via Bank Quay).

The number of longer distance journey that have to be on the alignment is quite small.

The example of Metrolink and Merseyrail shows that high intensity stopping service patterns tend to be quite popular.
Given that the longest journey that can't easily move is Warrington to Liverpool, I'm not sure there is a serious problem with concentrating fast services onto the Chat Moss.

EDIT:

It's rather telling that passenger numbers at Hunt's Cross are 20+ times that at Halewood, which is a mere mile away and still surrounded by housing. It's even got far fewer passengers than comparatively low density Merseyrail stations like Town Green.

 

[Watershed]

Given that the longest journey that can't easily move is Warrington to Liverpool, I'm not sure there is a serious problem with concentrating fast services onto the Chat Moss.

Even for this journey, there is still every opportunity to run more fast services from Warrington Bank Quay to Liverpool. They would probably be just as quick as the current "fast" services from Central.

 

[yorksrob]

The only reason this discussion comes up is that the line has turned up on Manchester's Metrolink Christmas list.

 

[PTR 444]

It's rather telling that passenger numbers at Hunt's Cross are 20+ times that at Halewood, which is a mere mile away and still surrounded by housing. It's even got far fewer passengers that comparatively low density Merseyrail stations like Town Green.

That’s because Halewood doesn’t have Merseyrail. Based on December 2019 timetables, Hunts Cross had 5tph serving it compared to Halewood which only had 1tph. It shows that people are more likely to gravitate to stations with a turn up and go service than nearby ones which don’t.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s because Halewood doesn’t have Merseyrail. Based on December 2019 timetables, Hunts Cross had 5tph serving it compared to Halewood which only had 1tph. It shows that people are more likely to gravitate to stations with a turn up and go service than nearby ones which don’t.

Precisely, the suppressed demand on this alignment created by not having a Merseylink style timetable is almost certainly huge.

Even Widnes manages only ~450k passengers before coronavirus. Meanwhile a town like Ormskirk, with less than half the people, manages five times that.
Ormskirk has railheading sure, but I very much doubt it could make up that discrepency, given that Widnes would have some railheading too!

 

[Purple Orange]

The only reason this discussion comes up is that the line has turned up on Manchester's Metrolink Christmas list.

As the OP, certainly not. Our cities need far better public transport services and where we have a line with plenty of suburban stations but a poor rail service, we are only encouraging people to use their car, contributing to clogging up roads within the centre. Long distance services have too much priority and I would be making this argument on my local line too (Crewe-Manchester). The general public much prefer the reliability of a high frequency local service which they can depend upon. Long distance services, like Liverpool-Sheffield, could be routed via the Chat Moss and does that route need 2 tph? Well it didn’t that long ago, but that’s where we are heading.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s not just a regional route. We are talking about two large cities that has a faster line running parallel, while the suburbs within those cities have poor rail services. The line links two densely populated areas but only their city centres are well served, while the suburbs within those densely populated areas on the Manchester side do not. Th3 problem here is that it only encourages people to use the car and not even contemplate using the train.

People cite stations like Glazebrook as reasons why there shouldn’t be a 4 tph service, but that is missing the point entirely. Irlam, Flixton, Chassen Road, Urmston, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park are all stations in highly built up city areas that should have a far better rail service than 2 tph.

But you think nothing of forcing people from those stations to change trains if they want to get to the urban areas on the other side of Warrington. How much cross Kirby/Ormskirk travel happens at the edge of the Merseyrail network ? Isn't it the case that the buffer stops have severely impeded flows on those corridors ?

 

[HSTEd]

But you think nothing of forcing people from those stations to change trains if they want to get to the urban areas on the other side of Warrington. How much cross Kirby/Ormskirk travel happens at the edge of the Merseyrail network ? Isn't it the case that the buffer stops have severely impeded flows on those corridors ?

This is true, but the passenger number uplifts from Merseyrail style service appear so enormous that even if all those passengers were utterly lost, which seems unlikely, we would still see a substantial net growth in traffic.

 

[Purple Orange]

But you think nothing of forcing people from those stations to change trains if they want to get to the urban areas on the other side of Warrington. How much cross Kirby/Ormskirk travel happens at the edge of the Merseyrail network ? Isn't it the case that the buffer stops have severely impeded flows on those corridors ?

Am I? I asked the question what the CLC should be and I said I’m in two minds about a through Lime Street-Manchester Airport service or splitting at Warrington. There are merits for both, but the status quo should not continue.

 

[PTR 444]

As the OP, certainly not. Our cities need far better public transport services and where we have a line with plenty of suburban stations but a poor rail service, we are only encouraging people to use their car, contributing to clogging up roads within the centre. Long distance services have too much priority and I would be making this argument on my local line too (Crewe-Manchester). The general public much prefer the reliability of a high frequency local service which they can depend upon. Long distance services, like Liverpool-Sheffield, could be routed via the Chat Moss and does that route need 2 tph? Well it didn’t that long ago, but that’s where we are heading.

I understand your logic, but trying to cram everything long-distance onto the Chat Moss would be impossible before NPR at least. Pre Covid on the section between Ordsall Lane and Golborne Junction you had:

2tph TPE Liverpool - North East
1tph Airport - North Wales
1tph Leeds - Chester
1tph Crewe - Liverpool stopper
1tph Airport - Cumbria via Wigan.

You would be trying to fit an extra 2tph on top of that which would put more strain on Ordsall Lane, so would have to find a way to work around it. You could withdraw the Liverpool stopper and put its calls into 2 semi-fasts to Cleethorpes and Nottingham (assuming we go by MRTF option B+), but then these passengers might complain about slower services, not to mention lost connectivity from Warrington and Widnes. Also that would still leave 7tph on Chat Moss so you might have to look at withdrawing something else to avoid overloading Ordsall Lane. Whatever you do, somebody will be upset at losing their direct airport rail link.

Realistically, fast Manchester Piccadilly - Liverpool services will never happen until NPR is built at the very earliest. Only once this has happened will the CLC and Chat Moss both become obsolete for long distance services, so it’s at that point you can use both lines to run a metro-like local service serving all stations.

 

[Purple Orange]

I understand your logic, but trying to cram everything long-distance onto the Chat Moss would be impossible before NPR at least. Pre Covid on the section between Ordsall Lane and Golborne Junction you had:

2tph TPE Liverpool - North East
1tph Airport - North Wales
1tph Leeds - Chester
1tph Crewe - Liverpool stopper
1tph Airport - Cumbria via Wigan.

You would be trying to fit an extra 2tph on top of that which would put more strain on Ordsall Lane, so would have to find a way to work around it. You could withdraw the Liverpool stopper and put its calls into 2 semi-fasts to Cleethorpes and Nottingham (assuming we go by MRTF option B+), but then these passengers might complain about slower services, not to mention lost connectivity from Warrington and Widnes. Also that would still leave 7tph on Chat Moss so you might have to look at withdrawing something else to avoid overloading Ordsall Lane. Whatever you do, somebody will be upset at losing their direct airport rail link.

Realistically, fast Manchester Piccadilly - Liverpool services will never happen until NPR is built at the very earliest. Only once this has happened will the CLC and Chat Moss both become obsolete for long distance services, so it’s at that point you can use both lines to run a metro-like local service serving all stations.

Yes it is unrealistic until NPR comes along and a long term solution for the CLC is found, but that’s the point of the question. All options avaliable can only be considered in the context of the next 15-20 years.

 

[HSTEd]

I understand your logic, but trying to cram everything long-distance onto the Chat Moss would be impossible before NPR at least. Pre Covid on the section between Ordsall Lane and Golborne Junction you had:

Well most conceptions of the CLC future involve taking its traffic off Castlefield (especially with a Metrolink to Warrington approach), so that simplifies operations in the whole East Manchester junction complex. So without going back to the drawing board and recasting the whole thing I'm not sure its possible to make any cast iron assessments of capacity in such a scenario.

 

[yorksrob]

Am I? I asked the question what the CLC should be and I said I’m in two minds about a through Lime Street-Manchester Airport service or splitting at Warrington. There are merits for both, but the status quo should not continue.

Fair enough in that case. I think there's likely to be a fairly complicated network of journey flows between the settlements, therefore keeping the end to end service is important.

 

[PTR 444]

Well most conceptions of the CLC future involve taking its traffic off Castlefield (especially with a Metrolink to Warrington approach), so that simplifies operations in the whole East Manchester junction complex. So without going back to the drawing board and recasting the whole thing I'm not sure its possible to make any cast iron assessments of capacity in such a scenario.

I may have previously suggested running Merseyrail trains through to Manchester and beyond purely to keep the intra-CLC connectivity in the event that its trains are removed from Castlefield, but I realise that this is not desirable for a number of reasons. Until NPR comes along, Nottingham and Cleethorpes (proposed) services will need to run that way so you are either looking at a haphazard stopping pattern like you have now, or a regular half-hourly stopping service stretching the full length of the CLC from Liverpool to Manchester, supplemented with the 2tph semi-fasts continuing to Sheffield and beyond.

The latter option would be more desirable from a local user point of view since passengers would have a more balanced service, even if it means passengers from further afield are more inconvenienced by a slower service. Under this plan I would say that both semi-fasts would need to call at Urmston, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington Central, Warrington West, Widnes and Liverpool South Parkway in order to maximise connectivity and ensure that the stoppers don’t catch up with them.

 

[HSTEd]

Until NPR comes along, Nottingham and Cleethorpes (proposed) services will need to run that way so you are either looking at a haphazard stopping pattern like you have now, or a regular half-hourly stopping service stretching the full length of the CLC from Liverpool to Manchester, supplemented with the 2tph semi-fasts continuing to Sheffield and beyond.

Are the Nottingham and Cleethorpes trains running to Liverpool necessarily sacrosanct?
Couldn't they, assuming portion working is not practical, terminate in the Picadilly trainshed until such time as a recast or whatnot allows them to run to the Chat Moss?

But my point is that by removing the CLC line from the Castlefield junction complex (at least in terms of regular passenger trains), you simplify diagraming of the entire area, and may make options that are currently impossible possible that could allow for some more trains over the section in question.

It fundamentally changes the entire railway environment in the area, so I don't think its possible to just look at today's reality and say that it necessarily holds afterwards.