Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

Ianno87 · 9 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I'd support this as I've said before (I would go for a Merseyrail style 15 minute frequency all stations service calling at Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green) but I wouldn't use 12 as it has no access from the bridge, I'd use 11 instead and move other services that use that to 12.

One thing I've noticed is that TPEs via the Chord are VERY busy including passengers boarding at Vic for Picc. This could be resolved by either including Metrolink travel in all Manchester Stns and via Manchester tickets and making this clear (perhaps use a symbol like the + to denote it), or by removing the TPE Chord services and replacing with a Northern EMU service using EMUs with a standee layout on a shuttle.

Actually, scratch using 11, it could be Airport-Manchester Vic calling at all the Styal Line stations then Picc, Oxford Road, Deansgate and Vic. Extend all stations to Rochdale once that's wired.

That's a fairly horiffic crossing move across the lot somewhere between Deal Street and Miles Platting? It crosses *every* flow from the CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton and Bolton at some point on it's trip round!

I'm fairly sure with every debate like this, sending everything to Man Airport ends up being the least-worst option in terms of conflicts.

I am surprised at quite how popular the Vic-Airport flow actually is...certainly not a 'you can just get the tram instead' level of flow...

RailUK Forums

Glenn1969 · 9 Dec 2019

ARN are trying to fulfil their franchise commitments to the Calder Valley but that is for an Airport service (think the CV Liverpool TSR commitment is supposed to be via Chat Moss).

yorksrob · 9 Dec 2019

notlob.divad said:
Alternatively you could install 4 lifts between the platforms (1, 2&3, 4&5, 6&7) and the mid platform bridge and replace the reversal of the Transpennine services with a half hourly or better shuttle service to the Airport just like is done for Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, running from a dedicated Platform 12. It would massively increase reliability for everybody across the North of England, could be done with existing excess EMUs and would be benefitial to anyone coming to Manchester airport from across the whole country not just the handful that arrive via the route through Stalybridge.

In fact given the airport owning company is the biggest gainer out of direct services to their train station. They could run this service with dedicated liveried rolling stock for easy identification and the benefit of their customers.

Well yes, you could of course.

I'm just wondering whether we could square the circle of needing more paths from the West at the same time as wanting to keep direct trains from the East to the airport. Unfortunately, however good the connection, I find that a lot of 'normal' travellers start rolling their eyes and looking worried as soon as you mention changing trains, particularly if there's a flight involved.

notlob.divad · 9 Dec 2019

Confused52 said:
I believe you have unlocked the issue. The complaint by Northern was being disadvantaged by the grant of firm rights over the Castlefield corridor. The symbol on P21 of Annex A in the supplemental agreement was intriguing since it is not one MSWord can do easily. Now we know that the argument was about firm rights so it would appear to be the case that Form P and the Annex differ only in that the Liverpool to Norwich service will operate on contingent rights between Liverpool and Piccadilly from the Principal Change Date in calendar year2020, December 2020. The firm rights terminating at Piccadilly from that date, hence the "chain link" symbol to represent firm in the note, whilst the physical termination of the service remains Lime Street.

So the bottom line is there will be no loss of service between Piccadilly and Lime St next year (the next change being the franchise change of the route I guess). There will also be the extra late evening services mentioned on the ORR Form P between Nottingham and Piccadilly.

Could you explain this a bit more to the lay person (me). I don't follow the difference between 'firm' rights and 'contingent' rights. What would the 'contingent' rights be contingent on?

Confused52 · 9 Dec 2019

notlob.divad said:
Could you explain this a bit more to the lay person (me). I don't follow the difference between 'firm' rights and 'contingent' rights. What would the 'contingent' rights be contingent on?

Section 4.4.4 (Impact of Framework Agreements) of Network Rail Infrastructure's Network Statement 2019, on Page 52 says [see - https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Network-Statement-2019.pdf]

"The New Working Timetable, as described in Section 4.3, must be consistent with the exercised firm rights of RUs, provided that they have been exercised at or before the relevant Priority Date. We must also attempt to accommodate all access proposals supported by contingent rights but firm rights always take priority."

So in essence contingent rights are contingent on Network Rail thinking they can fit them in! For more details see the link, as a cure for insomnia perhaps.

tbtc · 9 Dec 2019

Presumably if EMR were to drop (some) Liverpool services there'd have to be a replacement service? With Northern's famous spare DMUs, presumably...

ainsworth74 said:
It is, of course, easy to sling mud but it's not quite a simple in the real world. I have chatted with a member of Northern staff who has some involvement in decisions around holding connections and the first thing they said was that they need to know that there are actually passengers in need of the connection that needs to be held. They won't just hold a train on the off chance that someone is making the interchange! If they're told that x number of passengers require a connection onto a Northern service then it is much more likely to be held. But equally frequency or last train of the day to 'Station X' also matters. If there's another Northern service going to be along in half an hour then with the best will in the world they're not going to hold a train and delay all the passengers already on board whilst if it's the last train of the day then they're much more likely to hold a train.

By all means through mud if you want but don't just insult the intelligence and ability of those on the ground making the decisions and trying to manage the day to day running of the operation.

Agreed - I think some people like to think that every connection was held in BR days and no connections are ever held nowadays - it's fifty shades of grey (and always has been) - saving one person a fifty five minute for their next train might delay a hundred people by five minutes - someone has to do the decision making at ground level (and it won't always suit everyone)

frodshamfella said:
Where has this weird idea that People from the Liverpool region don' t go to anywhere but Manchester, bizare !! And how about people arriving ? Tourists , VFR , they just come from Manchester too then , really !!?

Nobody is saying that there's no travel beyond Manchester - complete straw man argument - just that there's maybe not enough to warrant the through services that it currently has.

Bletchleyite said:
Simplification and reduction of frequency but with longer trains is likely to assist in your journey going as planned, however. The pre-1997 timetable with far lower frequencies was much, much more reliable across the North than the present mess even with the vastly inferior equipment that they had back then.

True - we've crammed in significantly more services (but with very little increase in track/ infrastructure/ train lengths)

Meerkat said:
TBF airport connections are a business thing. Also a bit like hotel pools - the importance of their existence for marketing is out of proportion to their actual use.

Great analogy

yorksrob said:
Given that a lot of luggage laiden passengers from the Yorkshire direction do seem to continue to the airport, I wonder whether it would improve things to revert these to the old route and reverse via Piccadilly

There's only thirtysomething passengers on board each Airport service, and a large number of those will just be Airport - City Centre passengers.

notlob.divad said:
Alternatively you could install 4 lifts between the platforms (1, 2&3, 4&5, 6&7) and the mid platform bridge and replace the reversal of the Transpennine services with a half hourly or better shuttle service to the Airport just like is done for Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick, running from a dedicated Platform 12. It would massively increase reliability for everybody across the North of England, could be done with existing excess EMUs and would be benefitial to anyone coming to Manchester airport from across the whole country not just the handful that arrive via the route through Stalybridge.

In fact given the airport owning company is the biggest gainer out of direct services to their train station. They could run this service with dedicated liveried rolling stock for easy identification and the benefit of their customers.

Good suggestion - it works well around London (which is maybe why Manchester felt it had to take a different path!)

Chester1 · 9 Dec 2019

Lime Street - Victoria - Stockport - Sheffield - Nottingham would be a potential alternative route. It would extend Manchester - Sheffield to an hour but that would be offset by running via Chat Moss. A Stockport - Victoria service would be a useful link too. Finding paths would be complicated though!

gazzaa2 · 9 Dec 2019

Ianno87 said:
It's come from personal observation of passenger behaviour on a service that's been established in more or less its present form for over a quarter of a century now.

Note I did *not* say there was no Long Distance demand for visitors etc. to Liverpool.

What I said was that the Liverpool-Norwich through service is no longer suiting those passengers' needs, with those passenger seeming now to express preference to moving to other, faster routes and accepting an extra change for the journey time benefit it brings out. This is (anecdotally) evidenced by the relatively low proportion of cross-Manchester demand on the Liverpool-Norwich service.

It's increasing becoming a through service for the sake of a through service, without anybody checking whether the L-N service is fundamentally fulfilling its long distance purpose any more.

It has basically stood still (with not much realistic prospect of significant improvements in its current form due to the network it operates through) where the alternative network of connections around it has got faster and more frequent.

If those numbers are typical, the question becomes at what tipping point should the requirements of so relatively few through passengers (most of whome would still travel on a non-direct service) trump the overall benefit of splitting the service a much larger number of non-through passengers?

To be fair to get to a lot of places (particularly east of Manchester) it would require a change at Manchester anyway for passengers between South Parkway and Warrington. Plus Liverpool were taken out the Cross Country network so again a change at Manchester would in many cases be required to get to places on that network for CLC line passengers.

If this train moves to Victoria-Lime Street then that's a lot more pressure on the CLC NOrthern stopper between Lime Street and Oxford Road and is another blow to Liverpool Airport or passengers east of Manchester looking to go there so soon after the Scarborough service was taken off the line. Yet presumably Manchester Airport keeps its Ordsall Chord services. Hardly seems fair.

43074 · 9 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
Nobody is saying that there's no travel beyond Manchester - complete straw man argument - just that there's maybe not enough to warrant the through services that it currently has.
[/snip]
There's only thirtysomething passengers on board each Airport service, and a large number of those will just be Airport - City Centre passengers.
[/snip]
Good suggestion - it works well around London (which is maybe why Manchester felt it had to take a different path!)

Right so what do you actually suggest? You say there's "not enough [travel] to warrant the through service [Liverpool] currently has" but at the same time "there's only thirty something passengers on board each Airport service..." so really all you prove is there's no right answer.

Maybe the current hourly Airport - Manchester - Liverpool, Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield and Airport - Manchester - Sheffield links together strike the best compromise? Each of Liverpool/Manchester and Manchester/Sheffield get a half hourly service fast between them, and direct trains to the Airport and between Liverpool and Sheffield. There's nowhere else with the capacity to handle all the trains coming in from the West of Manchester anyway so you might as well send some of them to the Airport.

The hourly Alderley Edge to Southport or Crewe to Liverpool via the Airport would be better contenders for removing from the corridor in my view, Liverpool to Nottingham and beyond actually makes a useful contribution to wider connectivity.

Camden · 9 Dec 2019

Ianno87 said:
That's a fairly horiffic crossing move across the lot somewhere between Deal Street and Miles Platting? It crosses *every* flow from the CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton and Bolton at some point on it's trip round!

I'm fairly sure with every debate like this, sending everything to Man Airport ends up being the least-worst option in terms of conflicts.

I am surprised at quite how popular the Vic-Airport flow actually is...certainly not a 'you can just get the tram instead' level of flow...

The only real "Vic-Airport" flow actually comes from Liverpool. The ruinous timetable changes have resulted in many airport bound passengers (most of who know neither Liverpool nor Manchester sufficiently to know better) being directed to take a TPE train to Victoria and change there, rather than the direct service. Causing problems all round, especially given the lack of frequency of onward connections and the tendency for cancellations.

Odd how this is good enough for the visitors to/inhabitants of one major city, whereas An Other hick town in nowhereshire needs a direct Manchester airport train regardless of any extra connectivity problems caused.

Re the passenger flow numbers question, unless the "anecdotes" are going to be willingly trumped by the many others stating what they have endured first hand, let's instead remember that studies have been done and statistics are released from time to time: Liverpool's metropolitan train usage dwarfs all other areas in the North both in numbers and per person, and it defies logic that would not in turn generate heavy intercity flows between any city directly connected. And the FT did a study which confirmed both these things.

Were it the case that a new East Midlands service to Liverpool via Crewe was on offer, then perhaps with serious strengthening of Northern services via Warrington might just be an option. But that isn't the case.

I would also point out that this service is a long distance connector not just for Liverpool itself, but also for its airport. Manchester isn't the only airport people want to travel from.

This latest debacle is also against the connectivity aims of "transport (supposedly) for the North", in which all major cities are supposed to be connected to each other by at least two trains an hour. That's all major cities. Not, all major cities except Liverpool which instead gets cut off.

Ianno87 · 9 Dec 2019

Camden said:
The only real "Vic-Airport" flow actually comes from Liverpool. The ruinous timetable changes have resulted in many airport bound passengers (most of who know neither Liverpool nor Manchester sufficiently to know better) being directed to take a TPE train to Victoria and change there, rather than the direct service. Causing problems all round, especially given the lack of frequency of onward connections and the tendency for cancellations.

Odd how this is good enough for the visitors to/inhabitants of one major city, whereas An Other hick town in nowhereshire needs a direct Manchester airport train regardless of any extra connectivity problems caused.

Re the passenger flow numbers question, unless the "anecdotes" are going to be willingly trumped by the many others stating what they have endured first hand, let's instead remember that studies have been done and statistics are released from time to time: Liverpool's metropolitan train usage dwarfs all other areas in the North both in numbers and per person, and it defies logic that would not in turn generate heavy intercity flows between any city directly connected. And the FT did a study which confirmed both these things.

Were it the case that a new East Midlands service to Liverpool via Crewe was on offer, then perhaps with serious strengthening of Northern services via Warrington might just be an option. But that isn't the case.

I would also point out that this service is a long distance connector not just for Liverpool itself, but also for its airport. Manchester isn't the only airport people want to travel from.

This latest debacle is also against the connectivity aims of "transport (supposedly) for the North", in which all major cities are supposed to be connected to each other by at least two trains an hour. That's all major cities. Not, all major cities except Liverpool which instead gets cut off.

Liverpool is at the end of what is becoming a fast Liverpool - Chat Moss - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - York - Newcastle main line. Not sure how that constitutes being 'cut off'?

The Norwich services takes the (now) slower route to Manchester via CLC and as such are an increasingly poor relation, don't attract long distance passengers in the same way, and not the fast service that Liverpool deserves, nor one that will meaningfully attract passengers.

Grumpy Git · 9 Dec 2019

Ianno87 said:
Liverpool is at the end of what is becoming a fast Liverpool - Chat Moss - Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds - York - Newcastle main line. Not sure how that constitutes being 'cut off'?

The Norwich services takes the (now) slower route to Manchester via CLC and as such are an increasingly poor relation, don't attract long distance passengers in the same way, and not the fast service that Liverpool deserves, nor one that will meaningfully attract passengers.

I admit to not being "attract"ive, but as a passenger within reasonable walking distance of South Parkway (less than 30 mins), the reduction / loss of the Norwich service would be terrible.

Bletchleyite · 9 Dec 2019

Grumpy Git said:
I admit to not being "attract"ive, but as a passenger within reasonable walking distance of South Parkway (less than 30 mins), the reduction / loss of the Norwich service would be terrible.

Why, provided it was replaced with a similar service to Manchester operated by Northern?

Grumpy Git · 9 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Why, provided it was replaced with a similar service to Manchester operated by Northern?

You were doing OK until the final word.

I like the 158's too.

notlob.divad · 9 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
Presumably if EMR were to drop (some) Liverpool services there'd have to be a replacement service? With Northern's famous spare DMUs, presumably...

They couldn't because even if they terminated at Deansgate or Oxford Road then they would need to apply for a new path from Castlefield Junction, which Network Rail have said they will not grant 'Firm' rights. So we would still be in exactly the position.

frodshamfella · 9 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
Presumably if EMR were to drop (some) Liverpool services there'd have to be a replacement service? With Northern's famous spare DMUs, presumably...

Agreed - I think some people like to think that every connection was held in BR days and no connections are ever held nowadays - it's fifty shades of grey (and always has been) - saving one person a fifty five minute for their next train might delay a hundred people by five minutes - someone has to do the decision making at ground level (and it won't always suit everyone)

Nobody is saying that there's no travel beyond Manchester - complete straw man argument - just that there's maybe not enough to warrant the through services that it currently has.

True - we've crammed in significantly more services (but with very little increase in track/ infrastructure/ train lengths)

Great analogy

There's only thirtysomething passengers on board each Airport service, and a large number of those will just be Airport - City Centre passengers.

Good suggestion - it works well around London (which is maybe why Manchester felt it had to take a different path!)

I thought it was just the one service we are talking about the EMR one, thats just the one per hours beyond Manchester eastward.

tbtc · 9 Dec 2019

43074 said:
Right so what do you actually suggest? You say there's "not enough [travel] to warrant the through service [Liverpool] currently has" but at the same time "there's only thirty something passengers on board each Airport service..." so really all you prove is there's no right answer.

Maybe the current hourly Airport - Manchester - Liverpool, Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield and Airport - Manchester - Sheffield links together strike the best compromise? Each of Liverpool/Manchester and Manchester/Sheffield get a half hourly service fast between them, and direct trains to the Airport and between Liverpool and Sheffield. There's nowhere else with the capacity to handle all the trains coming in from the West of Manchester anyway so you might as well send some of them to the Airport.

The hourly Alderley Edge to Southport or Crewe to Liverpool via the Airport would be better contenders for removing from the corridor in my view, Liverpool to Nottingham and beyond actually makes a useful contribution to wider connectivity.

My point being that the cross-Manchester flows aren't significant enough to require all of the messy cross-city services that we have.

Whilst there will be demand from a place on one side of Manchester to various places on the other side, IMHO its too complicated to try to provide all of these direct links.

That's why I'd rather that we focussed on simple links, better connections, longer trains (instead of several hourly services often run by two coach DMUs).

So, taking the CLC as an example, the need for a service all the way to Norwich isn't important enough to warrant the pain caused by having these narrow doored trains going through Castlefield, nor is the need to run all the way to Liverpool worth putting the Nottingham./ Sheffield passengers at the mercy of the bottleneck west of Piccadilly.

TBH I'd be happy with longer trains from Sheffield to Manchester at the cost of everything terminating in the "shed" at Piccadilly. There'd be a loss of through services to the Airport/ Liverpool but I don't think that there are sufficient passengers to make such links essential - Sheffield lost its direct links to Blackpool/ Cumbria etc some time ago and (whilst it'd be useful to some people to have such direct services) I don't think we can satisfy the small number of long distance passengers when trying to cater to the large number of everyday passengers (typically doing journeys of under ninety minutes)

Camden said:
Liverpool's metropolitan train usage dwarfs all other areas in the North both in numbers and per person

It sounds impressive, but it's not a huge claim to fame when Manchester/ Sheffield/ Newcastle/ Sunderland have light rail networks - all it really means is that Liverpool has a bigger local train network than Leeds.

Killingworth · 9 Dec 2019

Chester1 said:
Lime Street - Victoria - Stockport - Sheffield - Nottingham would be a potential alternative route. It would extend Manchester - Sheffield to an hour but that would be offset by running via Chat Moss. A Stockport - Victoria service would be a useful link too. Finding paths would be complicated though!

That would go down like a lead balloon from the Sheffield end as it would create 2 entirely separate cross Pennine services. It's bad enough now, but at least with both using Piccadilly it's relatively simple to change platforms if one train is delayed or cancelled - and the Northern stopping service is also available.

A significant number of Sheffield season ticket holders use Oxford Road for the University area. There are many wanting to go through to Liverpool.

Chester1 · 10 Dec 2019

Killingworth said:
That would go down like a lead balloon from the Sheffield end as it would create 2 entirely separate cross Pennine services. It's bad enough now, but at least with both using Piccadilly it's relatively simple to change platforms if one train is delayed or cancelled - and the Northern stopping service is also available.

A significant number of Sheffield season ticket holders use Oxford Road for the University area. There are many wanting to go through to Liverpool.

I agree 1tph from each station would be a problem but one that would be resolved after the eventual completion of the Hope Valley upgrade. In the long term a split of 2tph express for Piccadilly and 1tph for Victoria would provide more connections and serve a wider area of Manchester city centre than today. Liverpool to Sheffield connectivity would remain unchanged by diverting via Victoria and the CLC would inevitably get a replacement service.

Killingworth · 10 Dec 2019

Chester1 said:
I agree 1tph from each station would be a problem but one that would be resolved after the eventual completion of the Hope Valley upgrade. In the long term a split of 2tph express for Piccadilly and 1tph for Victoria would provide more connections and serve a wider area of Manchester city centre than today. Liverpool to Sheffield connectivity would remain unchanged by diverting via Victoria and the CLC would inevitably get a replacement service.

Squeezing that 4th train for the Hope Valley through both Manchester and Sheffield will be a big challenge. Don't overlook the numbers using those current trains at Oxford Road who'd be unhappy to see it diverted.

notlob.divad · 10 Dec 2019

Ianno87 said:
That's a fairly horiffic crossing move across the lot somewhere between Deal Street and Miles Platting? It crosses *every* flow from the CLC, Chat Moss, Atherton and Bolton at some point on it's trip round!

So exactly the same move that is being proposed for a Northern service from Bradford to Manchester airport, but with the massive advantage that it won't import and export delays to and from the wider rail network.

43074 · 10 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
My point being that the cross-Manchester flows aren't significant enough to require all of the messy cross-city services that we have.

Whilst there will be demand from a place on one side of Manchester to various places on the other side, IMHO its too complicated to try to provide all of these direct links.

Many of the cross Manchester services exist not because of demand but operational convenience: there's very little capacity for terminating services from West of Manchester so running trains to the Airport caters for people who want to go there and means there aren't loads more trains terminating at Piccadilly or Oxford Road from the west. The numbers of people doing Southport or Bolton to Wilmslow or Alderley Edge must be tiny, for instance, so in a sense you're probably right that the numbers are quite small. That said I would actually rather maintain links like Liverpool to Sheffield at the expense of those.

Ianno87 · 10 Dec 2019

notlob.divad said:
So exactly the same move that is being proposed for a Northern service from Bradford to Manchester airport, but with the massive advantage that it won't import and export delays to and from the wider rail network.

But several more times per hour...

gazzaa2 · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Why, provided it was replaced with a similar service to Manchester operated by Northern?

It won't be though will it? Because it would lose the point of cutting this service off CLC.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Killingworth said:
Squeezing that 4th train for the Hope Valley through both Manchester and Sheffield will be a big challenge. Don't overlook the numbers using those current trains at Oxford Road who'd be unhappy to see it diverted.

One option, as noted above, might be to connect the Hope Valley stopper with a Liverpool service using 3-car 195s (SDO if needed). It wouldn't work now as it runs via Marple so would need to cross the formation, but there is a long term proposal to run it via Hazel Grove instead (with a replacement service to Chinley only the other way), and that would make it reasonably workable.

notlob.divad · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Why, provided it was replaced with a similar service to Manchester operated by Northern?

If it gets cut, it isn't going to be replaced. As I highlighted above the problem is network rail granting 'firm' rights for any services between Castlefield Junction and East Piccadilly Junction. Any service off the CLC, must pass through Castlefield Junction to get to a terminal station, (unless you are going to make its eastern terminus Manchester United Football Ground Halt). So there will be no replacement service because if Network Rail won't grant the rights to EMR they won't grant it to any other operator either. (If they did EMR as a private entity, would surely have a pretty solid legal case against Network Rail).

frodshamfella · 10 Dec 2019

Killingworth said:
That would go down like a lead balloon from the Sheffield end as it would create 2 entirely separate cross Pennine services. It's bad enough now, but at least with both using Piccadilly it's relatively simple to change platforms if one train is delayed or cancelled - and the Northern stopping service is also available.

A significant number of Sheffield season ticket holders use Oxford Road for the University area. There are many wanting to go through to Liverpool.

I was thinking there must be quite a bit of student movement Liverpool/Sheffield and vv.

I use the route for business in Sheffield and to Norwich, with luggage I really would be put off using the train at all if I had to mess around a Piccadilly, plus there is the worry if your late will you make the connection or is it even running.

Killingworth · 10 Dec 2019

Bletchleyite said:
One option, as noted above, might be to connect the Hope Valley stopper with a Liverpool service using 3-car 195s (SDO if needed). It wouldn't work now as it runs via Marple so would need to cross the formation, but there is a long term proposal to run it via Hazel Grove instead (with a replacement service to Chinley only the other way), and that would make it reasonably workable.

Ah, but that would create a stink in the Goyt Valley as they like their trains into the Peak District! Any changed route causes counterbalancing drawbacks to offset gains.

A small example, TPE ceasing to call at Chinley. That stop delayed the service, but last time I was in a train that stopped there it was being used. Many Chinley users commute to Manchester and Stockport, but backpackers also alight for the hills.

It's impossible to accommodate every conceivable journey on our crowded rail infrastructure. Whoever makes the decisions is bound to get kicked.

Bletchleyite · 10 Dec 2019

Killingworth said:
Ah, but that would create a stink in the Goyt Valley as they like their trains into the Peak District!

I'm sure they do, but for the record that part is not my proposal, I believe it is an actual long-term plan.

frodshamfella · 10 Dec 2019

I always thought the CLC route between Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester and beyond was the more popular route than via St Helens Junc anyway ? Before fast Leeds services all went on the CLC I believe.

Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member