MEN article-"Northern Rail is crumbling from the inside out and things are only going to get worse"

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
Well I'm sure Network Rail would chop a service or two through Manchester if they had the chance based upon their 'congested' Castlefield Corridor report. But the DfT are insistent in running more services as part of an unreliable timetable so fat chance of a sensible short-medium term solution - nor would they be willing to lose face and admit that the Ordsall Chord is one of the most poorly-thought out white elephants on the UK railway. It wasn't seriously considered at any stage that the Chord actually takes out a lot of the capacity into Oxford Road and Victoria requiring a perfect synchronisation of services - too much thought was about the simply shuffling the congestion problem away from the 'throat' of Piccadilly without considering the true repercussions. It's a mess.

Network Rail are the system operator and can refuse paths as they see fit. Could be challenged via the ORR but DfT don't force them.

The fact Ordsall was built at all tells you what a mess the whole structure is.

RailUK Forums

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

Mogster said:
Castlefield is nothing like Thameslink. It’s the mix of commuter, long distance services and regular freight that causes most of the problems. Then add in the presence of the airport for the North at one end and a large freight terminal at the other...

There’s really no alternative to adding extra capacity where possible, but that will be disruptive and expensive.

It is the number of flat junction conflicts that is the problem. The commuter DMUs and long distance EMUs can fit around each other as per.

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
re the above two points - nobody is saying that there's *no* market to the Airport - it's just that some of us are trying to explain that the passenger numbers don't justify all of the services currently thrown at it (at a time when plenty of other lines have insufficient stock.

Thirty million passengers is a big number but there are under five million train passengers per annum - divide those by the number of trains serving the airport and you have thirtysomethibng passengers on each train - now, maybe we should all believe Manchester Airport Group's PR and assume their forecast of fifty million passengers, but even if the trains see a corresponding increase in passengers (i.e. not spreading the passengers amongst additional services like the proposed Bradford one), that forty percent increase still means there'd be spare seats if all nine trains per hour were single 153s - which means there are currently quite a lot of seats on a 5x26m 802.

Whichever way you want to use the numbers, there are going to be a lot of empty seats on Airport trains - maybe ninety percent of seats on an 802 are going to be spare - maybe if you buy into the spin, it'll only be eighty five percent of seats that are empty, but that feels a waste of resources when people are struggling to find a seat on other services (and can't even physically board some services).

Again, to avoid doubt, I'm not saying that's no demand, I'm not saying that there are no passengers, just that the passenger numbers don't justify the current service level (and therefore, it we are looking to thin out some services to deal with all of the congestion).

That would be a step in the right direction (but would keep up the number of services on the Airport branch)

It's amazing that southerners manage to get to Airport, given the way that Stansted and Heathrow don't have long distance services from every village in a fifty mile radius (Gatwick and Luton are obviously on main lines but even so Luton Airport won't be getting any services from Leicester/ Derby/ Nottingham)

Good point - I'm really unconvinced that 15/16 are the priority that a lot of people think they are.

Maybe we should be looking to double the service from West Yorkshire to Burnley/ Blackburn and the WCML at Preston (if the SELRAP suggestions of amazingly untapped demand from the Burnley area to Leeds etc

I agree with the suggestion - but you do highlight one of the big problems with the Northern franchise - the messy combination of hourly services that clog up Greater Manchester are mainly due to the franchise specification (as demanded by the various "stakeholders") rather than decisions directly made by Northern - get rid of Arriva if you want but you'll struggle to find someone else capable of getting a decent tune out of a franchise hamstrung by all of these requirements/ demands. But Northern can't make the changes unilaterally.

I agree that something needs to be done - at the moment every corridor will get affected by a minor delay on the Airport branch - all of these hourly services will fall over and stock will be out of place, staff due their breaks, no resilience, it's very hard to bounce back when something goes wrong.

Look at what works, copy it, don't be afraid to inconvenience a small number of people in Middlesbrough who want direct trains to the Airport for their annual holiday if it means you can provide a more reliable service to the significantly larger number of people in northern England who rely on the train for their daily commute.

The West / North to Manchester Airport are huge markets it would be absurd to cut them off for operating convenience. What is needed is fewer and longer services not whole arteries cut off.

Of course the underlying problem is the Airport. All the routes can reach one Manchester station when that was the objective. Now getting through Airport links from all points of the compass means lots of conflicts.

AndrewE · 26 Dec 2019

jw said:
It does include this on page 15.

It should be highlighted that this theoretical calculation of capacity assumes that a 2-minute dwell is achievable. Local observations demonstrate multiple trains within the hour exceeding this value due to passenger numbers and additional operational duties e.g. train crew changeovers.

A crew change stop was 2 minutes when trains were allowed half a minute for a station stop in the working timetables.
It may be that there are more formalities to be completed nowadays, but the real reason that crew changes at Piccadilly pfms 13 and 14 are a mad idea is that the intensity of use combined with the unreliability of almost every service going through guarantee mushrooming delays (to put it mildly.) A delay due to crew not being in place is a) a self-inflicted wound and b) certain to seriously impact all other services in the same direction.

Tomnick · 26 Dec 2019

jayah said:
It is the number of flat junction conflicts that is the problem. The commuter DMUs and long distance EMUs can fit around each other as per.

I’m not convinced that the flat junctions are such a problem, on their own. They’re all low speed with pretty tight junction margins. Castlefield Junction’s one of the busiest and, coming off the Cheshire Lines with a few minutes’ worth of allowances put into schedules, it’s usually a case of either waiting for one to come across the junction first *or* trundling straight across and waiting in Deansgate for a platform at Oxford Road instead.

Tomnick · 26 Dec 2019

modernrail said:
I do wonder whether this is fertile ground for some early solutions. Could the DfT and TOCS agree rearrangement of crew movements to effectively ban changeovers on any Manchester through platforms and might this have a material impact?

They’re already routinely struggling for crew, so putting a load of unproductive time in diagrams for Manchester-based traincrew (to get them back to their home depot at the end of an early turn or to start work on lates) would make things rather worse in that respect, I’d suggest.

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

tbtc said:
re the above two points - nobody is saying that there's *no* market to the Airport - it's just that some of us are trying to explain that the passenger numbers don't justify all of the services currently thrown at it (at a time when plenty of other lines have insufficient stock.

Thirty million passengers is a big number but there are under five million train passengers per annum - divide those by the number of trains serving the airport and you have thirtysomethibng passengers on each train - now, maybe we should all believe Manchester Airport Group's PR and assume their forecast of fifty million passengers, but even if the trains see a corresponding increase in passengers (i.e. not spreading the passengers amongst additional services like the proposed Bradford one), that forty percent increase still means there'd be spare seats if all nine trains per hour were single 153s - which means there are currently quite a lot of seats on a 5x26m 802.

Whichever way you want to use the numbers, there are going to be a lot of empty seats on Airport trains - maybe ninety percent of seats on an 802 are going to be spare - maybe if you buy into the spin, it'll only be eighty five percent of seats that are empty, but that feels a waste of resources when people are struggling to find a seat on other services (and can't even physically board some services).

Again, to avoid doubt, I'm not saying that's no demand, I'm not saying that there are no passengers, just that the passenger numbers don't justify the current service level (and therefore, it we are looking to thin out some services to deal with all of the congestion).

That would be a step in the right direction (but would keep up the number of services on the Airport branch)

It's amazing that southerners manage to get to Airport, given the way that Stansted and Heathrow don't have long distance services from every village in a fifty mile radius (Gatwick and Luton are obviously on main lines but even so Luton Airport won't be getting any services from Leicester/ Derby/ Nottingham)

Good point - I'm really unconvinced that 15/16 are the priority that a lot of people think they are.

Maybe we should be looking to double the service from West Yorkshire to Burnley/ Blackburn and the WCML at Preston (if the SELRAP suggestions of amazingly untapped demand from the Burnley area to Leeds etc

I agree with the suggestion - but you do highlight one of the big problems with the Northern franchise - the messy combination of hourly services that clog up Greater Manchester are mainly due to the franchise specification (as demanded by the various "stakeholders") rather than decisions directly made by Northern - get rid of Arriva if you want but you'll struggle to find someone else capable of getting a decent tune out of a franchise hamstrung by all of these requirements/ demands. But Northern can't make the changes unilaterally.

I agree that something needs to be done - at the moment every corridor will get affected by a minor delay on the Airport branch - all of these hourly services will fall over and stock will be out of place, staff due their breaks, no resilience, it's very hard to bounce back when something goes wrong.

Look at what works, copy it, don't be afraid to inconvenience a small number of people in Middlesbrough who want direct trains to the Airport for their annual holiday if it means you can provide a more reliable service to the significantly larger number of people in northern England who rely on the train for their daily commute.

The West / North to Manchester Airport are huge markets it would be absurd to cut them off for operating convenience. What is needed is fewer and longer services not whole arteries cut off.

Of course the underlying problem is the Airport. All the routes can reach one Manchester station when that was the objective. Now getting through Airport links from all points of the compass means lots of conflicts.

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

Tomnick said:
I’m not convinced that the flat junctions are such a problem, on their own. They’re all low speed with pretty tight junction margins. Castlefield Junction’s one of the busiest and, coming off the Cheshire Lines with a few minutes’ worth of allowances put into schedules, it’s usually a case of either waiting for one to come across the junction first *or* trundling straight across and waiting in Deansgate for a platform at Oxford Road instead.

The worst thing to do at a conflicting junction is to stop at at a red and restart.

The fact they are planned to wait already says too many trains.

The Planner · 26 Dec 2019

Depends what the allowances are there for, but they can cause trouble as trains can present early and stop when they are assumed to be moving. The corridor being slow slightly mitgates it but it all adds up.

GRALISTAIR · 26 Dec 2019

I have noticed that buffet trollies/ catering often load here too. To improve the situation nothing of this sort should happen at this location.

Tomnick · 26 Dec 2019

jayah said:
The worst thing to do at a conflicting junction is to stop at at a red and restart.

The fact they are planned to wait already says too many trains.

With the probable exception of the heavy intermodal trains, though, a train starting away from a stand at the protecting signal will be clear of the junction quicker than one that’s had a route set through the junction in time to get greens right through or even just from the first signal in rear.

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

Tomnick said:
With the probable exception of the heavy intermodal trains, though, a train starting away from a stand at the protecting signal will be clear of the junction quicker than one that’s had a route set through the junction in time to get greens right through or even just from the first signal in rear.

I don't agree.

Standing trains block up other routes while even DMUs are slow to get going and occupy the point of conflict for far longer. Nor can they get behind the preceding train on the planning margin if they just had to stop and wait.

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

The Planner said:
Depends what the allowances are there for, but they can cause trouble as trains can present early and stop when they are assumed to be moving. The corridor being slow slightly mitgates it but it all adds up.

Looking at the link 1P10 and 9M03 Stalybridge to Ashton Moss Jn.

Both timed Class 800 / 125 mph.

The former has 1.5min pathing approaching Sralybridge but both have 3min for the following section running non stop.

So the allowance to restart from this check appears to be zero...

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y33279/2020-05-06/detailed

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y75195/2020-05-06/detailed

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

AndrewE said:
A crew change stop was 2 minutes when trains were allowed half a minute for a station stop in the working timetables.
It may be that there are more formalities to be completed nowadays, but the real reason that crew changes at Piccadilly pfms 13 and 14 are a mad idea is that the intensity of use combined with the unreliability of almost every service going through guarantee mushrooming delays (to put it mildly.) A delay due to crew not being in place is a) a self-inflicted wound and b) certain to seriously impact all other services in the same direction.

If they are based at Piccadilly what else do you do pay them to ride passenger to Bolton or Manchester Airport and change there?

Two minutes sounds like the timetable planning rules have been bent into the shape of the stakeholder ambition for more services not the other way round.

And it would hardly be the only example said rules being abused to make the unworkable appear to work. On paper.

thejuggler · 26 Dec 2019

Since the new timetable Bradford Interchange is becoming a bottleneck during early morning when there is any delay to a service. I have sat at Mill Lane junction a couple of mornings waiting for platforms to clear. Not helped due to the bunching of services thanks to the timetable since May.

The Grand Central set blocks platform 2 giving just three platforms for quite a few movements before GC leaves for Kings Cross. Last week the GC was on P3, rather than P2 (possibly also due to a delay blocking 2) and we pulled in behind, but this isn't the norm.

Tomnick · 26 Dec 2019

jayah said:
I don't agree.

Standing trains block up other routes while even DMUs are slow to get going and occupy the point of conflict for far longer. Nor can they get behind the preceding train on the planning margin if they just had to stop and wait.

The planning margin is based on green signals, isn’t it? I know, from experience, that I can get away from a standing start at Castlefield Junction and be well on the way into Deansgate before the first train gets far enough that the signal can clear for me to run into a different platform at Oxford Road. Usually, for me, the first train is into the bay, and I’ll often get a green straight into platform 4 just as I approach Deansgate platform, with a handy banner repeater too. You can’t get much tighter than that!

Nicholas Lewis · 26 Dec 2019

Thameslink core runs 19TPH over a flat jcn at Blackfriars and through the core reliably which contributors all say is down to common stock albeit its a mix of 8/12 cars. So surely a much quicker fix would be procure to more stock to maximise train lengths to at least 4 or 6 cars and ensure dwell times are reduced. Any infrastructure improvement involving more tracks is a minimum of five years away and probably north of £1B which buys plenty of new trains. The one quick infrastructure fix is to get signalling control consolidated which should be achievable within two years.
Any reduction of services now is a singular failure by the industry collectively make this work for the passengers albeit short term it has to be managed around the available crew resources

jayah · 26 Dec 2019

Tomnick said:
The planning margin is based on green signals, isn’t it? I know, from experience, that I can get away from a standing start at Castlefield Junction and be well on the way into Deansgate before the first train gets far enough that the signal can clear for me to run into a different platform at Oxford Road. Usually, for me, the first train is into the bay, and I’ll often get a green straight into platform 4 just as I approach Deansgate platform, with a handy banner repeater too. You can’t get much tighter than that!

The headway is based on green signals meaning that every pathing allowance wastes space in the timetable.

For some strange reason the practice also seems to allow two trains to converge from routes with equal linespeed, one from a red signal, following one in flight and maintaining separation at that margin, which is probably impossible.

jayah · 27 Dec 2019

Nicholas Lewis said:
Thameslink core runs 19TPH over a flat jcn at Blackfriars and through the core reliably which contributors all say is down to common stock albeit its a mix of 8/12 cars. So surely a much quicker fix would be procure to more stock to maximise train lengths to at least 4 or 6 cars and ensure dwell times are reduced. Any infrastructure improvement involving more tracks is a minimum of five years away and probably north of £1B which buys plenty of new trains. The one quick infrastructure fix is to get signalling control consolidated which should be achievable within two years.
Any reduction of services now is a singular failure by the industry collectively make this work for the passengers albeit short term it has to be managed around the available crew resources

Based on a fairly random sample hour, TL appears to be 18tph on the core of which only 6 take the route to Elephant & Castle.

Manchester is a complex series of conflicts in very close proximity, some with trains crossing both running lines on an opposing route and where standing clear of one conflict blocks up a different route.

Bovverboy · 27 Dec 2019

Bovverboy said:
I agree with the mathematics - 1tph each way Salford Central - Salford Crescent - Ordsall Lane would add four movements per hour through the junction, taking the current 26tph max up to 30tph max. A flat double track turnout such as Windsor Bridge South can handle at least double that.

Ianno87 said:
...only when all trains do the same thing, the entire timetable is optimised around the junction and trains aren't doing silly things like reversing across the junction, locking out the entire thing in at least one direction or the other (like would be the case here)

Any train passing through Salford Crescent locks out Windsor Bridge South Junction in one direction. A reversing service would only occupy the junction more than that once per hour, i.e. when approaching from Ordsall Lane, when the entire junction would be occupied.

Bovverboy · 27 Dec 2019

Quite a few Northern services were cancelled today in advance (i.e. similar to a typical Sunday) but many more have been cancelled impromptu. Particularly badly affected has been Piccadilly - Crewe, the direct service was cancelled in advance, the via Airports have been cancelled on the day. Only Avanti and TfW have been running. Between Piccadilly and Liverpool, the Chat Moss stoppers have been virtually annihilated, too.
If you want to go anywhere, go to Rose Hill Marple/New Mills Central/Sheffield - the service looks to be blemishless!

Freds dad · 27 Dec 2019

Meeting with some friends today in Macclesfield and they are coming from Blackrod, Stone and Crewe. No end of delays and cancellations resulting in what was a 2.30 meet now being anything up to 4pm. I feel really sorry for any commuters caught up in this.

I assume the cancellations and delays are due to staff shortages / holidays / sickness?

The Planner · 27 Dec 2019

jayah said:
Network Rail are the system operator and can refuse paths as they see fit. Could be challenged via the ORR but DfT don't force them.

This goes back to the manipulation of planning rules, if a path is compliant we would have to prepare a lot of counter arguments to not actually offer it. The recent example of LNWR/WMT to Rugeley is a case in point on turnrounds. Retrospectively trying to fix the problem in the rules is not an easy thing to do either without taking it to a potential dispute hearing.

AndrewE said:
A crew change stop was 2 minutes when trains were allowed half a minute for a station stop in the working timetables.
It may be that there are more formalities to be completed nowadays, but the real reason that crew changes at Piccadilly pfms 13 and 14 are a mad idea is that the intensity of use combined with the unreliability of almost every service going through guarantee mushrooming delays (to put it mildly.) A delay due to crew not being in place is a) a self-inflicted wound and b) certain to seriously impact all other services in the same direction.

2 minutes is standard for a C stop, doubt it will change either.

Tomnick said:
With the probable exception of the heavy intermodal trains, though, a train starting away from a stand at the protecting signal will be clear of the junction quicker than one that’s had a route set through the junction in time to get greens right through or even just from the first signal in rear.

jayah said:
I don't agree.

Not sure I do either, a train moving is going to clear quicker than from a stand

jayah said:
Looking at the link 1P10 and 9M03 Stalybridge to Ashton Moss Jn.

Both timed Class 800 / 125 mph.

The former has 1.5min pathing approaching Sralybridge but both have 3min for the following section running non stop.

So the allowance to restart from this check appears to be zero...

This is where the various shades of grey come in, the pathing time is there on the assumption a train passes the junction/conflict on a headway or junction margin, however I think we can reasonably assume that at lower values of pathing time professional driving means the train isn't going to chase the red and stop. The Western route does have recovery time added after pathing but they are an anomaly currently. Rounding to ½ minutes also factors to an extent.

Tomnick said:
The planning margin is based on green signals, isn’t it? I know, from experience, that I can get away from a standing start at Castlefield Junction and be well on the way into Deansgate before the first train gets far enough that the signal can clear for me to run into a different platform at Oxford Road. Usually, for me, the first train is into the bay, and I’ll often get a green straight into platform 4 just as I approach Deansgate platform, with a handy banner repeater too. You can’t get much tighter than that!

jayah said:
The headway is based on green signals meaning that every pathing allowance wastes space in the timetable.

For some strange reason the practice also seems to allow two trains to converge from routes with equal linespeed, one from a red signal, following one in flight and maintaining separation at that margin, which is probably impossible.

Correct, headway is green, junction margins and platform re-occupation aren't. Again, most planning is assuming best aspects or that the first train is moving quicker than the second at a conflict therefore an element of the second moving on a single yellow is incorporated.

Killingworth · 27 Dec 2019

Bovverboy said:
If you want to go anywhere, go to Rose Hill Marple/New Mills Central/Sheffield - the service looks to be blemishless!

That makes a very pleasant change. Hope Valley services have a 5% chance of random cancellation and 1 in 5 is likely to be over 10 minutes late. Preplanned cancellations don't seem to count.

jayah · 27 Dec 2019

The Planner said:
This goes back to the manipulation of planning rules, if a path is compliant we would have to prepare a lot of counter arguments to not actually offer it. The recent example of LNWR/WMT to Rugeley is a case in point on turnrounds. Retrospectively trying to fix the problem in the rules is not an easy thing to do either without taking it to a potential dispute hearing.

2 minutes is standard for a C stop, doubt it will change either.

Not sure I do either, a train moving is going to clear quicker than from a stand

This is where the various shades of grey come in, the pathing time is there on the assumption a train passes the junction/conflict on a headway or junction margin, however I think we can reasonably assume that at lower values of pathing time professional driving means the train isn't going to chase the red and stop. The Western route does have recovery time added after pathing but they are an anomaly currently. Rounding to ½ minutes also factors to an extent.

Correct, headway is green, junction margins and platform re-occupation aren't. Again, most planning is assuming best aspects or that the first train is moving quicker than the second at a conflict therefore an element of the second moving on a single yellow is incorporated.

It isn't really shades of grey at 1.5min on a 75mph railway you aren't going to make the next timing point as if you were running in greens.

On turnarounds there seems to be almost zero logic in the 'rules' as seen with Liverpool Scarborough and back in 10mins and many daily cancellations.

It is all very well saying 2mins is standard for a crew change but if circumstances change and drivers now need to log in to this and that computer, then like any assumption it needs to be tested regularly and changed if incorrect.

jayah · 27 Dec 2019

Bovverboy said:
Quite a few Northern services were cancelled today in advance (i.e. similar to a typical Sunday) but many more have been cancelled impromptu. Particularly badly affected has been Piccadilly - Crewe, the direct service was cancelled in advance, the via Airports have been cancelled on the day. Only Avanti and TfW have been running. Between Piccadilly and Liverpool, the Chat Moss stoppers have been virtually annihilated, too.
If you want to go anywhere, go to Rose Hill Marple/New Mills Central/Sheffield - the service looks to be blemishless!

Looking at Trains.IM Northern has collapsed and posted two months of Cancelled and Significantly Late worse even than the dizzy heights of May 2018 which was 7.4%.

One mechanism which definitely doesn't work is that for saying we need to run emergency timetable and it won't be compliant with the franchise agreement. At least the passenger would have some certainty when they travel. Regularly cancelling 8% of trains should not be tolerated.

js1000 · 28 Dec 2019

jayah said:
Looking at Trains.IM Northern has collapsed and posted two months of Cancelled and Significantly Late worse even than the dizzy heights of May 2018 which was 7.4%.

One mechanism which definitely doesn't work is that for saying we need to run emergency timetable and it won't be compliant with the franchise agreement. At least the passenger would have some certainty when they travel. Regularly cancelling 8% of trains should not be tolerated.

Depends what you mean by emergency timetable. I feel even just culling the Liverpool-Crewe and Southport-Alderley Edge experiment into two services either side of Manchester (as it was pre-May 2018) would result in an immediate and tangible improvement. Flogging a dead horse springs to mind and the Liverpool-Crewe service yesterday didn't even run once!

It's not in the DfT's interests to let Arriva denigrate the Northern franchise any further. The high level of cancellations and delays just puts existing passengers off and prohibits any passenger growth which the franchise was let on to reduce overall subsidy levels.

jayah · 28 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
Depends what you mean by emergency timetable. I feel even just culling the Liverpool-Crewe and Southport-Alderley Edge experiment into two services either side of Manchester (as it was pre-May 2018) would result in an immediate and tangible improvement. Flogging a dead horse springs to mind and the Liverpool-Crewe service yesterday didn't even run once!

It's not in the DfT's interests to let Arriva denigrate the Northern franchise any further. The high level of cancellations and delays just puts existing passengers off and prohibits any passenger growth which the franchise was let on to reduce overall subsidy levels.

I mean by advertising a train service in its entirety that can be delivered and delivered reliably. The current offer is literally a work of fiction and pruning a few twigs here and there will not be sufficient. They are currently at around an 8% cancellation rate.

This should not be about 'letting off' Northern but the current situation is not in anybody's interest. They must surely be in breach of the franchise for cancelling so many trains anyway.

158756 · 28 Dec 2019

js1000 said:
Depends what you mean by emergency timetable. I feel even just culling the Liverpool-Crewe and Southport-Alderley Edge experiment into two services either side of Manchester (as it was pre-May 2018) would result in an immediate and tangible improvement. Flogging a dead horse springs to mind and the Liverpool-Crewe service yesterday didn't even run once!

The problem in the Southport case is that they weren't entirely separate before May 2018. Losing the link to Piccadilly we know would be very controversial, and Salford Crescent is not a great interchange, much less so without the Southport service running through to Piccadilly. No doubt whichever MP represents the St Helens area will be cross as well.

If you try to fit this change around the current timetable - assuming that actually works, I can't say if it actually would, it looks like the Liverpool and Southport turnarounds would be either nothing, so unreliable, or around an hour, so extra units and staff needed.

paul1609 · 28 Dec 2019

158756 said:
The problem in the Southport case is that they weren't entirely separate before May 2018. Losing the link to Piccadilly we know would be very controversial, and Salford Crescent is not a great interchange, much less so without the Southport service running through to Piccadilly. No doubt whichever MP represents the St Helens area will be cross as well.

If you try to fit this change around the current timetable - assuming that actually works, I can't say if it actually would, it looks like the Liverpool and Southport turnarounds would be either nothing, so unreliable, or around an hour, so extra units and staff needed.

Whats wrong with Salford Crescent as an interchange? You alight from the Victoria Train, the Picadily train arrives a few minutes later on the same platform.
I couldn't understand why on a recent trip from London to Accrington trainsplit had me changing at Bolton (long walk to the stairs, across a bridge, long walk down the other side , lifts out of order one side as is the norm in the North) v Salford Crescent.

MEN article-"Northern Rail is crumbling from the inside out and things are only going to get worse"

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member