Glenn1969
Established Member
Think that shortage is only on NW. Yorkshire depots have different terms and conditions apparently
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Northern timetable changes May 2019
- Thread starter absolutelymilk
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Flyingsprinter
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 99
On the Calder Valley it would be grand if on a Sunday they could send out a longer train then just the 2 car units that they currently do on most services. If they are going to have only 1 train an hour on sundays then so be it, but it needs to be at least 4 cars long.
A 2 car 195 will also have many fewer seats than a 2 car 150/155/158 does on the Calder Valley line
2 car 195s and PRM refurbished 150s both (I think?) have 124 seats. 158s have more, of course, but 195s have far more standing room, so it's a trade off.
Philip
On Moderation
What about when 323s appear? They are pretty nippy in acceleration.
Philip
On Moderation
Thanks
Greybeard33
Established Member
This thread is about the May 2019 timetable. It seems highly unlikely that all Victoria - Preston services will be worked by 323s from May. Especially since Northern's 323s will need to sent away for PRM mods before the end of the year, if they are going to remain in service next year.
Therefore the timings will have to be for the more sluggish 319s.
There would need to be crew training for 323s to appear on the Victoria to Prestons. Either training a few hundred Victoria/Wigan/Blackpool/Buxton crew on 323s who currently don't sign them, or training Piccadilly/Liverpool crew on the bits of the route they don't currently sign and watch the route knowledge wither of all depots - the ones who were new to the Preston work would need someone to do their 'old' work, the ones who had until recently done that work would see their route knowledge lapse on that route and unless there was work common to both depots which could be redistributed to sort both the surplus and deficiency of capacity caused at each depot (there isn't really any work that fits the bill) then the whole operation becomes massively inefficient with trains cancelled due to no available crew, yet with traincrew sat around unable to do any work...
This is why it takes so long to bring new traction on to existing routes unless crew already sign both the route and the traction. Training for new traction and routes has to be done at just the right time too - too early and traincrew can't retain their competence on the route/traction by the time they get round to eventually being booked to work it, too late and the service can't be run because too few people are trained in time. This usually affects further training. We saw this with the introduction of the 180s, 319s and I dare say it will happen with the brand new units too looking at timescales.
This is why it takes so long to bring new traction on to existing routes unless crew already sign both the route and the traction. Training for new traction and routes has to be done at just the right time too - too early and traincrew can't retain their competence on the route/traction by the time they get round to eventually being booked to work it, too late and the service can't be run because too few people are trained in time. This usually affects further training. We saw this with the introduction of the 180s, 319s and I dare say it will happen with the brand new units too looking at timescales.
tbtc
Veteran Member
A lot of the "Bradford" population is catered for by the Leeds - Ilkley/ Skipton services, to be fair.
And I'm not arguing against more seats for the Leeds - Calder Valley corridor, just arguing against the trend of "lots of two/three coach services because of an obsession with hourly long distance links, rather than increasing the number of carriages on existing services".
If we are going to have up to six services per hour in each direction coming through New Pudsey (Leeds to Preston, Chester, Liverpool, Southport, Bradford, Halifax and Brighouse) then that's going to mean up to a dozen services crossing the flat throat at Bradford Interchange and reversing there, on top of the GC services to London.
Is there really nothing to be said for a simple service every fifteen minutes but where each service is at least four coaches long? Or are we so fixated on providing direct links from Bradford to far flung destinations that we welcome the short trains?
So Nottingham to Manchester Airport every hour via Hebden Bridge?
I can't see any problems maintaining the reliability of such a long service through the various bottlenecks of northern England (getting through Sheffield, reversing at Leeds, reversing at Bradford, squeezing through the Castlefield corridor...)
Cheshire Rover
Member
One Leeds to Chester service now showing on RTT for May 20th. 1D70 departing 0539.
That's hardly worth the trade.... people much prefer a seat to standing and the reason people have to stand is that there aren't enough seats
ChrisC
Established Member
It’s the same old story! It’s great news that Northern are getting all these new trains but why are so many of the 195’s only 2 carriages providing less seats than the current, often seriously overcrowded old 150 and 158 trains. Even 3 carriage trains after a few years will not provide enough capacity on many busy inter urban routes.
Haven’t we learnt anything from the mistakes of the past. The Voyagers were built with far too few carriages and so were the 185’s. Why is the north getting yet more 2 carriage trains for busy routes. How many 2 carriage trains have been ordered for routes in the south during recent years?
Which is all well and good; but who do you propose pays for the extra carriages which will, for most of the day, most of the year, cart around nothing but fresh air?
Longer trains, and more seats, would be lovely, but I seriously doubt there is a business case.
Flyingsprinter
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2018
- Messages
- 99
No business case for longer trains up north but there is a business case for long trains in the south east that throughout most of the day during off peak hours carry around a lot of fresh air?
If you’ve ever traveled on a northern 2 car dmu at rush hour out of Manchester or Leeds then you’d know there most certainly is a very strong case.
Just because the trains are crowded in rush hour does not mean that there would be enough money made from making them longer to justify the extra cost of said longer trains.
Like it or not, the railway is a business and if adding carriages does not make money it is not going to happen.
faltskog36abba
Member
Thanks for that, I have just looked before I came on here but I didn't look at the earlier times.
Where are these future Northern Connect services where off peak services don’t have enough passengers to fill up 2 cars?
Few of the Connect services have timetables available as yet; however, I would venture to suggest that, on many routes, services will be slower (e.g. Manchester - Leeds via the Calder Valley), and with a lower standard of passenger service than on other operators (Virgin, TPE, Cross Country, et al all offer catering, and first class, for example). Unless the fares on Northern Connect are frankly astonishing, I would be amazed if they attract a significant number of regional journeys except where they allow a direct journey which isn't otherwise possible.
I really hope that Northern manage to timetable the Connect services in a way that offers something that's good value, convenient, rapid, and that feels special to customers because I can't see how else it will work. Otherwise, they're just tarted up commuter trains. Sadly, with the stops they have to make, routes they have to take, and crowded network they have to slot into, I can't see how it can happen.
underbank
Established Member
You mean like the 12 coach London/SE trains that are sat idle in sidings outside peak hours or which are running around carrying fresh air most of the day?
Paid for how? The money just isn't there without either a) a massive increase in taxpayer funding, which is about as likely as my 14 stone form willing the London Marathon this year; or b) an even more massive increase in fares, which would decimate passenger numbers and render the new trains pointless anyway.
I also don't see where you could timetable many longer trains to actually go. Many of the routes that are going to be served by Connect already struggle to fit double units, if they can at all, and there are already platform extensions going on all over the shop. Not to mention that the paths Northern will have to live with for these trains are not going to be any faster, on many routes, than existing Northern services, which people shun in favour of TPE & others.
tbtc
Veteran Member
There are plenty of other threads for the north/south debates on here.
My guess would be that Greater Anglia are running longer trains on some routes because they are keeping most frequencies roughly the same.
Part of the reason is because the infrastructure can't take many more services per hour, part of the reason is that they are keeping the timetable simple.
If GA was being run in a similar way to Northern then we'd see Southend getting direct hourly services to Norwich/ Stansted/ Harwich, rather than a simple clock face timetable for Southend - London.
Greater Anglia is a simple network which relies on regular interval services and connections for branch lines. Northern is a mess because we are running trains for the benefit of local MPs who are more interested in the prestige of through services than simple "metro" operations.
Greater Anglia is pretty radial though. The Northern routes are not.
I don't disagree with your point about everywhere to everywhere, and everywhere to Manchester Airport - but Shenfield to Harwich would require a reversal (yes Bradford Interchange) - etc - generally it all stems from Liverpool St by design.
Northern's network would need to be carved up into specific metros/termini - rather than these random regional pairings. The issue is that through-running is needed at Manchesters Victoria and Piccadilly... and electrification limits some of the pairs. A western Rochdale/Stalybridge type location is needed to terminate Calder trains at volume - no spare platforms anywhere really. Bolton perhaps now?
I don't disagree with your point about everywhere to everywhere, and everywhere to Manchester Airport - but Shenfield to Harwich would require a reversal (yes Bradford Interchange) - etc - generally it all stems from Liverpool St by design.
Northern's network would need to be carved up into specific metros/termini - rather than these random regional pairings. The issue is that through-running is needed at Manchesters Victoria and Piccadilly... and electrification limits some of the pairs. A western Rochdale/Stalybridge type location is needed to terminate Calder trains at volume - no spare platforms anywhere really. Bolton perhaps now?
Eccles1983
On Moderation
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 841
Southport with 3 platforms or Wigan Northwestern with 3 already do this.
The bay at Bolton is useable, but what service would run from there?
Greybeard33
Established Member
Surely the issue at Manchester is more the lack of west-facing terminal platforms? If the TSR is fully implemented, the Victoria through platforms will have to terminate two DMUs per hour, from Kirkby and Wigan Wallgate, and one EMU per hour, from Preston. The Calder Valley services will all run through Victoria, leaving the hourly Stalybridge shuttle as the only service using the east-facing bays.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Given current planned electrification boundaries could the Preston EMU and the Stalybridge EMU shuttle end up combined as well?
Adding an extra unit to the Kirkby diagrams would allow that service to extend to Rochdale and terminate in the bay there (easier said than done, I know). As for the shuttles, logically it should be possible to combine the Wallgate - Victoria and Victoria - Stalybridge shuttles. That would, theoretically at least, remove the need for any trains to terminate at Victoria at all.
Even if you solve the capacity problems at Victoria, though, there are still the bottlenecks at Salford Crescent, and from Eccles/Salford Crescent through to Piccadilly, which severely limit how many trains it is possible to run into central Manchester from the west. I do wonder whether there is much more that can be done to improve the timetable within the limitations of the existing infrastructure.
I suppose there might be merit to an hourly Bolton - Rochdale shuttle via Victoria as an extra 'commuter' service. Good luck to anyone trying to find a path for it though.
Greybeard33
Established Member
I believe that was the original intention, before Victoria to Stalybridge electrification was curtailed.
Glenn1969
Established Member
I'm hoping the Castlefield area TWAO will be considered as part of the TRU so Picc platforms 15/16 can still be delivered. Forlorn hope though I guess?
- Status