May 2019 timetable changes

Does anyone have the full rundown of the new EMT running times?

What can we expect to see in future timetable changes? And when does Corby go live (wired and 2tph)?

scrapy said:

I doubt Merseytravel tickets will be valid via Runcorn as if that was the intention they would be valid to Runcorn now.

Click to expand...

Merseytravel have made some vague promise to integrate the areas eventually, but if the smart card scheme is anything to go by, don't expect this to be anytime soon. In all honesty, you'd think they were waiting for TfN to take this decision for them as they don't want to. I mean, how hard is it to add a Halton Zone to the existing system and just slightly adjust the all zone fares to take this into account .All the more bizarre given that they've done over boundary services for years at Hough Green in Halton borough without too much issue .

Starmill said:

Elsewhere, we can see that an hourly service will run between Guildford and Farnham. At the moment this is a most unattractive journey by rail requring in this direction, at least officially, some 32 minutes sat waiting at Aldershot.

Click to expand...

Just checked a day’s Aldershot moves on RTT and this Guildford - Farnham actually looks to be half hourly as originally proposed, with the Ascot - Aldershot also running half hourly:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/AHT/2019/05/22/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
Pending further changes as always.

Playing around with Waterloo on Realtime Trains I also notice there's now an additional 1718 to Haslemere. I always wondered why they had an additional train in the 1800-1900 hour and not the (presumably busier) 1700-1800 hour.

This also means the 1715 is now fast Guildford to Haslemere.

There's also additional 1848 and 1948 services to Poole, the 1848 being limited stop beyond Southampton, the 1948 is stopping - including Beaulieu Road!

Looks like they're attempting to make some of the proposed enhancements using the existing timetable - no bad thing. Though, it has to be said that the additional trains out of Waterloo between 1900 and 2000 are a sad indictment of our times; clearly if there's demand for peak additionals between 1900 and 2000 (the Reading 15 min frequency also is until 2000) an awful lot of people aren't finishing work until late! Back in the 80s and 90s you'd find few peak additionals much beyond 1830.

Still no hourly service at Beaulieu Road on Mon-Sat; this is a change which could be made at, presumably zero cost by simply stopping all the locals there. Granted it's not the busiest of stations but giving it an hourly service would encourage use of the train to this part of the New Forest. If there's need for a Sunday hourly service, why not Saturday? Bizarre certainly that BEU gets a better service on a Sunday in the depths of winter compared to the Bank Holiday Saturday at the end of May.

Another oddity is the 1744 Southampton-Portsmouth starting back at Brockenhurst around 1720; presumably using the stock of the 1439 from Waterloo which terminates there. The corresponding arrival from Portsmouth at Southampton at 1738 still terminates at SOU though on Platform 2; looks like the 1755 Waterloo semi-fast also runs from Platform 2 so at a guess would attach to this to give more capacity out of London just before 2000.

There's also a 1512 Waterloo-Basingstoke stopper extended to Portsmouth via Eastleigh; not sure if this runs currently, I'm a bit out of touch with what happens on this route at that time of day.

All in all then, seems there's a much more interesting set of changes on SWR than of late with a few genuine enhancements.

RTT doesn't seem to be showing departures from Waterloo towards Southampton Central between 2300-2359 at the moment; not sure why! A GMT vs BST bug?

nickw1 said:

Playing around with Waterloo on Realtime Trains I also notice there's now an additional 1718 to Haslemere. I always wondered why they had an additional train in the 1800-1900 hour and not the (presumably busier) 1700-1800 hour.

This also means the 1715 is now fast Guildford to Haslemere.

There's also additional 1848 and 1948 services to Poole, the 1848 being limited stop beyond Southampton, the 1948 is stopping - including Beaulieu Road!

Looks like they're attempting to make some of the proposed enhancements using the existing timetable - no bad thing. Though, it has to be said that the additional trains out of Waterloo between 1900 and 2000 are a sad indictment of our times; clearly if there's demand for peak additionals between 1900 and 2000 (the Reading 15 min frequency also is until 2000) an awful lot of people aren't finishing work until late! Back in the 80s and 90s you'd find few peak additionals much beyond 1830. Hope we're not going to move to peak restrictiions lasting until 2000.

Still no hourly service at Beaulieu Road on Mon-Sat; this is a change which could be made at, presumably zero cost by simply stopping all the locals there. Granted it's not the busiest of stations but giving it an hourly service would encourage use of the train to this part of the New Forest. If there's need for a Sunday hourly service, why not Saturday? Bizarre certainly that BEU gets a better service on a Sunday in the depths of winter compared to the Bank Holiday Saturday at the end of May.

Another oddity is the 1744 Southampton-Portsmouth starting back at Brockenhurst around 1720; presumably using the stock of the 1439 from Waterloo which terminates there. The corresponding arrival from Portsmouth at Southampton at 1738 still terminates at SOU though; so not sure what happens to this stock next.

Click to expand...

Evening peak restrictions on regulated fares (Off-Peak Returns, not the Day Return kind) can't extend beyond 19:00. Of course shorter journeys only have the Anytime Day Return and the season as the regulated fare, and thus evening peak restrictions could be increased on the Off-Peak Day Return.

I see the additional Sunday Salisbury - Reading services have appeared, but I was under the impression those services would be the stoppers allowing the services to/from Exeter to be sped up by only calling at Andover but as things stand on RTT it be the Reading services which are semifast and the Exeter services carry on the skip stopping pattern.

Still early days for the timetable to get updated I guess

Kite159 said:

I see the additional Sunday Salisbury - Reading services have appeared, but I was under the impression those services would be the stoppers allowing the services to/from Exeter to be sped up by only calling at Andover but as things stand on RTT it be the Reading services which are semifast and the Exeter services carry on the skip stopping pattern.

Still early days for the timetable to get updated I guess

Click to expand...

Bizarrely one of them runs through to Frome!

Wilts Wanderer said:

Bizarrely one of them runs through to Frome!

Click to expand...

I think that is a positioning move for the evening Frome - Waterloo service (and an extension of the current Sunday 17:10 Salisbury - Frome service)

TPE looks like to have been loaded on for the change.

stu99 said:

TPE looks like to have been loaded on for the change.

Click to expand...

Are there Liverpool-Scotland services and do the Manchester-Scotland services go via Bolton?

absolutelymilk said:

Are there Liverpool-Scotland services and do the Manchester-Scotland services go via Bolton?

Click to expand...

Bolton calls are shown on the majority of TransPennine Express trains from Scotland yes. The evening peak Northbound services do not call. The 2310 Manchester Airport to Carlisle is introduced, via Wigan NW but doesn't call there. All are pick up / set down only as universally expected. 0745, 1205 and 1629 Glasgow Central to Liverpool Lime Street are shown, plus return services. There is a 0548 Carlisle to Liverpool Lime Street and a 2012 Liverpool Lime Street to Oxenholme Lake District. Those two call at St Helens Central, along with 1212 Liverpool Lime Street to Glasgow Central.

As it happens, an introduction of a 0012 departure from Preston for Lancaster and Carlisle gives connections to these two cities off the 2110 from London Euston, which is an improvement over the current 2030. It also connects at Carlisle with the Up Lowland Sleeper. If this is by design or serendipity, I cannot say.

absolutelymilk said:

Are there Liverpool-Scotland services and do the Manchester-Scotland services go via Bolton?

Click to expand...

3tpd Liverpool - Glasgow via WCML. 1tpd Liverpool - Edinburgh via Newcastle. Manchester Airport platform allocations suggest interworking of Newcastle and Middlesbrough services will continue (40 minute turnrounds), with minor tweaks to the timings of these services. Platform allocations at Scarborough suggest 70 minute turnrounds.

Wilts Wanderer said:

Bizarrely one of them runs through to Frome!

Click to expand...

And two through to Gillingham.

I've created a thread specifically for the TPE WCML service changes, found here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-wcml-service-changes-from-may-2019.176023/#post-3810601

jcollins said:

Yet Northern have submitted a new application to Network Rail again requesting to run Greenbank-Manchester and to extend the peak time Stockport only services to Manchester.

Blackpool North services will go to Hazel Grove, not Macclesfield with an exception of an 2 daily services from Stoke to Macclesfield in the northbound direction only. However, Sunday services are still set to be Stoke to Blackpool (15 services in each direction.) Also, for the benefit of @agbrs_Jack there is a request to run an additional service to Congleton and Stoke in the evening peak, as well as one additional off-peak service.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...on-operating-companies/sale-of-access-rights/

Click to expand...

I received a message from a moderator saying this post doesn't meet forum rules and I must amend it to comply - I can't reply to that message. As most of what I'm referring to is in tables on a pdf it isn't possible to copy and paste from the source. The relevant sections that can be copied and pasted from those documents have been included in the thread already by @Greybeard33. As I've worked on web accessibility I'm well aware about the need for accessible information - tabular based information within a pdf file can be read by screen readers, but when you try to create a table on a forum (I have no idea how you would do it on this particular forum) the screen reader could end up reading the information in the wrong order, making it utterly useless to someone with a disability. I'm going to have less time to read and post on this forum than I used to have so if the moderators are going to be like that about links I will refrain from posting anything relating to track access applications on this forum and someone else can deal with the hassle of how it's possible to quote the tables from track access applications giving service requirements from them to comply with forum rules.

jcollins said:

I received a message from a moderator saying this post doesn't meet forum rules and I must amend it to comply - I can't reply to that message.

Click to expand...

I appreciate and value your posts but for me there is no connection between the link you give and the other information you post. Your link gives a large number of "consultation documents" and "sale of access rights" but if one of them is the one which is relevant for the Northern application you mention, which one is it?

jfollows said:

I appreciate and value your posts but for me there is no connection between the link you give and the other information you post. Your link gives a large number of "consultation documents" and "sale of access rights" but if one of them is the one which is relevant for the Northern application you mention, which one is it?

Click to expand...

The way the new Network Rail site works makes it impossible to link directly to the specific pdfs, unlike with the old site or with the TfGM or TfN sites.

jfollows said:

I appreciate and value your posts but for me there is no connection between the link you give and the other information you post. Your link gives a large number of "consultation documents" and "sale of access rights" but if one of them is the one which is relevant for the Northern application you mention, which one is it?

Click to expand...

jcollins said:

The way the new Network Rail site works makes it impossible to link directly to the specific pdfs, unlike with the old site or with the TfGM or TfN sites.

Click to expand...

It would appear that Network Rail are using a widget to embed documents they're storing in their document management system (a commercial provider) directly into their website. This system makes it deliebratly impossible to link directly to, or download, individual files. It's a security mechanism.

@jcollins - don't know whether this forum supports it and I can't try on my phone, but would it work if you converted the table to Markdown format?

Mathew S said:

It would appear that Network Rail are using a widget to embed documents they're storing in their document management system (a commercial provider) directly into their website. This system makes it deliebratly impossible to link directly to, or download, individual files. It's a security mechanism.

Click to expand...

They do allow downloads if you click the ... under options and then select download

@jcollins - don't know whether this forum supports it and I can't try on my phone, but would it work if you converted the table to Markdown format?

Click to expand...

No it converts it in to this sort of format

| From |
|-----------------------|
| To |
| Via |
| Description |
| TSC |
| Timing Load |
| Peak times1 |
| Off-Peak times2 |
| Weekday3 |
| Saturday |
| Sunday |
| Morning Peak |
| Evening Peak |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Millom |
| Direct |
| ED02.1 |
| 22358000 |
| 22354000 |
| 12355820 |
| 153 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 2 3 |
| 3 |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Sellafield |
| 0 |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 1 |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Maryport Workington |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 2 |
| 0 2 |
| 1 2 |
| 0 |
| Millom |
| Barrow - in - Furness |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 2 3 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| Maryport |
| Barrow - in - Furness |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 1 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| 0 |

Which is actually how a screen reader would read the information if it was put in HTML tables (sometimes supported on web forums) opposed to divs (rarely supported on web forums), making it useless from an accessibility prospective.

jcollins said:

They do allow downloads if you click the ... under options and then select download



No it converts it in to this sort of format

| From |
|-----------------------|
| To |
| Via |
| Description |
| TSC |
| Timing Load |
| Peak times1 |
| Off-Peak times2 |
| Weekday3 |
| Saturday |
| Sunday |
| Morning Peak |
| Evening Peak |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Millom |
| Direct |
| ED02.1 |
| 22358000 |
| 22354000 |
| 12355820 |
| 153 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 2 3 |
| 3 |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Sellafield |
| 0 |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 1 |
| Barrow- in- Furness |
| Maryport Workington |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 2 |
| 0 2 |
| 1 2 |
| 0 |
| Millom |
| Barrow - in - Furness |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 2 3 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| Maryport |
| Barrow - in - Furness |
| 1 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 1 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| 0 |

Which is actually how a screen reader would read the information if it was put in HTML tables (sometimes supported on web forums) opposed to divs (rarely supported on web forums), making it useless from an accessibility prospective.

Click to expand...

Ah poo. There goes that idea. I couldn't find the download link, thanks for that

Mathew S said:

Ah poo. There goes that idea. I couldn't find the download link, thanks for that

Click to expand...

On my phone, the download option is only available when I select the "Desktop site" option in Chrome.

Does anybody have a link to the comparison for real time that has been produced before.

Is a great tool for comparing current and new timetable.

Thanks in advance

Scotrail88 said:

Does anybody have a link to the comparison for real time that has been produced before.

Is a great tool for comparing current and new timetable.

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

The chap who has provided that comparison previously has never done it this early. Online sources just aren’t reliable nearly 5 months beforehand.

For last December’s changes it was made available late September, about 10 weeks ahead.

The new TFW services from Wrexham/Chester to Liverpool are showing on RTT. Perhaps this time TFW will have some rolling stock to run them.

323235 said:

Whilst I can understand the frustration with the changes to peak services on the Stoke line, from what I have seen based on the curtailment of the 1721 at Macclesfield with the current calling pattern, is that it has actually done a bit of good in loading terms, as it has dedicated more capacity to Stockport - Macclesfield section and has also made the 1746 significantly busier South of Macclesfield.

I do think we must not add extra services for the sake of it without a focus on filling and redistributing loadings on current services.

That's one thing that strikes me about the second northern train per hour off peak to Macclesfield, that was previously planned. Daytime services carry around a lot of fresh air.

We must focus on the capacity that is warranted and needed.

Click to expand...

Before May 2018, the 1646, 1718 and 1746 were generally all standing room only south of Macclesfield.
It's not adding an extra service, it's reinstating one that was removed against the service level commitment. Luckily it does appear in Northern's current Network Rail track access document.

jcollins said:

The way the new Network Rail site works makes it impossible to link directly to the specific pdfs, unlike with the old site or with the TfGM or TfN sites.

Click to expand...

I have managed to download the file now.

agbrs_Jack said:

Before May 2018, the 1646, 1718 and 1746 were generally all standing room only south of Macclesfield.
It's not adding an extra service, it's reinstating one that was removed against the service level commitment. Luckily it does appear in Northern's current Network Rail track access document.

Click to expand...

Please permit me to reminisce .... after the May 1974 timetable changes there were 4-car stopping trains Manchester-Macclesfield at 15:53, 16:10, 16:43, 17:02 (omitting Adlington), 17:15, 17:30, 17:43 & 17:58 (the only one of these services to call at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel). Some of them AM10 (Class 310) diagrams ......
The one they might reinstate is the nice one from Deansgate, which I used to use (much more recently than 1974, when I had moved to Wilmslow) to avoid the crush when it went to Crewe, fast to Stockport (although no reason for it to start at Deansgate again, in fact I see from the newly-downloaded file above that the service specification has been changed back to Manchester Piccadilly for this service now).

agbrs_Jack said:

Before May 2018, the 1646, 1718 and 1746 were generally all standing room only south of Macclesfield.
It's not adding an extra service, it's reinstating one that was removed against the service level commitment. Luckily it does appear in Northern's current Network Rail track access document.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see any of those services full and standing south of Macclesfield and I've been observing these services and travelling on them for many years.

As stated earlier I believe the changes have been very positive for redistribution of loadings.

The 1746 always had spare capacity which has given rise to healthier loadings south of Macclesfield, whilst freeing up capacity on the 1721 for stations north there of.

323235 said:

I've yet to see any of those services full and standing south of Macclesfield and I've been observing these services and travelling on them for many years.

As stated earlier I believe the changes have been very positive for redistribution of loadings.

The 1746 always had spare capacity.

Click to expand...

Every time I had travelled on all 3 (1646, 1718 and 1746) prior to May, all 3 were standing room only. (eg: no seats, not full and standing.)
I had consistently counted 40-80 people alighting each one at Congleton although the 1718 was the busiest.
Now, after Northern broke their commitment, the 1644 and 1744 are now definitely standing room only south of Macclesfield.
I've counted 25-30 getting off at MAC with numbers such as 40-120 at Congleton.
I'm not in any way stating that Macclesfield is not a busy station. I'm simply saying that you cannot justify an hourly service to a busy commuter station at peak time just because it makes your train quieter. Macclesfield passengers have plenty of options with 2tph VT and 2tph XC along with the hourly NT. Not only that but pay less than Congleton commuters too as MAC-MAN has Northern advances and VT only tickets. It's not about capacity for Congleton, it's about frequency, and hourly in the peak is not good enough. (and it seems the DfT agree).

scrapy said:

I doubt Merseytravel tickets will be valid via Runcorn as if that was the intention they would be valid to Runcorn now.

Click to expand...

They could allow travel along that route with the proviso that passengers do not board or alight at Runcorn, Frodsham, or Helsby.

There is a precedent for this as being as I am originally from the West Midlands, I can remember that the PTE products could be used to travel through Coleshill and Water Orton (outside the West Midlands County Council [sic] and PTE area) on the 59/90 (the 161/171 before then) bus, but not for boarding or alighting at any stop along the section of route outwith the PTE area.