-
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!
MEN article-"Northern Rail is crumbling from the inside out and things are only going to get worse"
- Thread starter Djgr
- 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
Thanks. I've seen a few 142s on York to Blackpool trains recently, usually attached to something else. I've never seen or heard of a 144 at Preston or Blackpool before. They used to run to Manchester Victoria quite freqently.
They were booked traction on almost all of the trains via Elland between Manchester and Leeds from when it started until 2013/14 when the booked traction changed to mostly 142/150/158. Occasionally, but increasingly rarely, a 144 does still make it via the Calder Valley but only if it is a Leeds crewed service out and back. Last time I saw one at Victoria was a year or two ago on a Sunday, when virtually all Calder Valley trains are worked by Leeds crews.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Plenty of resonance with the Virgin/Railtrack WCML upgrade there.
Greybeard33
Established Member
The design and planning of the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme was much more advanced than you seem to suggest. Project launch was in 2012 and GRIP 3 (single option selection) was completed in March 2014, after NR held a public consultation on the options in October 2013. There was a further public consultation on the detailed plans in September 2014 and NR submitted the TWAO application to the SoS in December 2014. The public inquiry was held from September to November 2015 and the inquiry report (which the DfT has refused to publish) was completed in February 2016 - see https://www.twansport.co.uk/infraprojects/manchester-piccadilly-and-oxford-road-capacity-scheme/. At this point the project would have been pretty much "shovel ready", subject to any recommendations from the inquiry in respect of the detailed design or construction programme.
NR has taken down most of the scheme documentation from its website, but an August 2014 draft of the Transport Assessment part of the Environmental Statement that supported the TWAO application can still be downloaded from https://consultations.networkrail.c...-and-piccadilly---environmental-statement.pdf. This 114 page document shows the maturity of the project planning, including traffic counts for all the roads in the area and the proposals for road closures and bus, taxi, cycle and pedestrian diversions during construction.
A 3D fly-through video simulation of the completed scheme has been preserved on a third party website at https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/watch-how-piccadilly-oxford-road-7898576. NR released this in October 2014 to support the public consultation.
The specific factors that caused the delays to the NW electrification projects would not have read across to this project. A better benchmark is NR's performance on the other non-electrification packages under the Northern Hub umbrella. Piccadilly/Oxford Road would in fact be on a similar scale to the Ordsall Chord construction, which involved a major new viaduct through the city centre and complex junction and signalling work interfacing with the live railway. On a somewhat smaller scale, the Manchester Victoria refurbishment project was successfully completed in 28 months and Manchester Airport Platform 4 was completed ahead of schedule in 2015.
I agree that the DfT and Arriva considered that only the CS5 changes, including the Ordsall Chord but the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme, were necessary to move from TSR1 to TSR2, as originally scheduled for December 2017. The unexplained anomaly concerns the change from TSR2 to TSR3, originally scheduled for December 2019. NR always maintained that the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme would increase capacity through Piccadilly from 12tph (11 passenger, 1 freight), which is what we actually have now, to 16tph (14 passenger, 2 freight). See for example https://consultations.networkrail.c...ster-oxford-road-and-piccadilly-rail-improve/. But TSR3 required an increase to 13tph. The franchise agreement also specified a feasibility study on the "Manchester Airport Proposal", which was an Arriva proposal, over and above the TSRs, for a service between Blackburn and the Airport via Todmorden, giving a fourth hourly train around the Ordsall Chord. This would have meant 14tph through Piccadilly.
I understand, from various sources, that the originally-planned May 2018 timetable (which had to be abandoned at a late stage because of the electrification delays) would have included the Bradford - Airport service, brought forward from TSR3. There would then have been 13tph scheduled, and the chaos would no doubt have been even worse than actually occurred with the reworked May 2018 timetable.
It is puzzling that the DfT, Arriva and TPE all apparently believed, right up to May 2018, that the capacity of the Castlefield corridor, without the Piccadilly/Oxford Road scheme, would be even greater than Network Rail's optimistic advice.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,930
You got your money back, how should they have done it? Was probably quicker that way.
Given I get delay repay via BACS I’d have expected that. But my point was more that an organisation of that size still handwrites cheques.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
I suppose that the operative word is "still" but in my BR days I had to hand-write and sign innumerable cheques for refunds.
Can't help thinking that there are more serious signs of the supposed "crumbling" in this thread.
Oh absolutely, it just seemed a reasonably relevant thread to make a comment in passing rather than starting a new one that’s all
Glenn1969
Established Member
Northern have been told they can keep 47 Pacers in service (24 142s and 23 144s) until May and August respectively . The 142s can only operate coupled to a compliant unit. They have also been granted derogation for 7 150s, 6 156s and all 20 153s until they have had their mods. This is for certain routes in Yorkshire afaik
So much for the transformation. But I guess the stock is still needed
So much for the transformation. But I guess the stock is still needed
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Have they managed to get enough 195s into service that they can reduce the pacers to these numbers at midnight and still run even there inadequate service?
Greybeard33
Established Member
There is also a dispensation for 12 of the 323s until they are modified.
The 156 dispensation expires on 30 September, the 323 one on 31 October and the 150 and 153 ones on 31 December 2020.
In the case of the 153s the dispensations are until they are withdrawn rather than until they are modified, so it remains Northern's intention that all 20 of them will go off lease once all the 195s and 769s are in service.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Only if they needed a wee.
The fact the scheme spent 4 years trying to get through consultation is informative.
Ordsall was around £85m this scheme was down for £200m including rebuilding two stations rather than just running lines. There was to be a far greater impact at street level.
Like most of the CP5 enhancements - note this wasn't at GRIP3 until after CP5 began - this one was a triumph of optimism over realism and was never going to take 2.5yrs nor cost £200m to complete.
But back to the fundamental issue - I don't accept that Northern have just cause to complain that a lack of contractural infrastructure enhancements in the franchise agreement being delivered are to blame for their inability to operate a reliable train service. The missing electrification at Winderemere, Stalybridge etc... is not substantial in that context.
The problems we are seeing stem from the restrictive crew rostering, training and diagramming practices enforced by the fact their trade unions have too much power and no incentive to support the commercial success of the business employing their members.
Very much agree with this. The problem with those calling for the renationalisation of Northern is that this would simply bring it back to the model which caused the problem in the first place. Equally, the current model gives no incentive for change as the unions know that any losses will ultimately end up being met by the taxpayer. Far better to move to a model where a successful franchisee is the one who will operate the maximum number of services commercially, with subsidy directed towards specific services where this not possible. This would mean that, aside from subsidy for those journeys, the only income coming would be through the fare box. This would create a greater lever for renegotiating terms and conditions in order to survive as a viable operation.
Northern will have to get rid of their Random Unit Generator if that's the case. Potentially going to be quite a few short-formee 150s & 156s as a result of this requirement.
They wiped out most of the 142s over the timetable change weekend. Since then there have only been 10 to 15 in use each day but several have been on their own.
156420
Member
Such as? With the exception of the Sunday problem of course.
What other problems in relation to Diagrams, Rostering and Training are the Unions causing the stop them running a train service?
Did they cause a service to be cancelled a few weeks ago out of Liverpool because it was a new driver who didn’t sign 142’s, because they aren’t getting trained on them, root cause being incorrect traction to diagram.
Or a few services cancelled between Doncaster & Scunthorpe because a 144 was about to run of exam miles?
Last edited:
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
I think - although I'm not sure and would like this confirmed/denied - a cheque can be faxed (!! - anyone still got a fax machine??) or more likely e-mailed and then either printed off or shown at the branch; and the cheque honoured? Anyone??
But these days I would have thought the standard procedure would be to send (mail or e-mail) the taxi receipt + your bank details and they simply transfer the money to you; but is there any risk to that? I suppose you could "try it on" and attempt several fraudulent repayments from the one receipt whereas if you send it in physically that can't happen?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A cheque can technically be written out on anything but you might have trouble getting a copy of one honoured.
cactustwirly
Established Member
I don't think a bank would accept anything but the original cheque, especially not one that's been printed.
Did they not offer to pay you through BACs?
Why aren't they getting trained on them?
A contracted 35hr week and unions who use even paid voluntary overtime as a negotiating chip makes it impossible to do any large scale retraining without decimating the day to day service.
Most companies have the power to enforce a degree of mandatory overtime to meet peaks and troughs in demand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the cancellations aren't just a Sunday problem?
They are a Saturday problem, a Christmas Eve problem and a Friday before the holidays problem.
It is pretty clear that the staff choose when they prefer to work and not the company paying them.
Somewhat belatedly, but I've been doing some timing...
Coming off the CLC, then, we have MC474 signal protecting Castlefield Junction, with MC476 in rear of that. MC458 is the first signal beyond the junction, at the far end of the Up platform at Deansgate. MC474 can't clear until the previous train has passed 458 signal and its (probably pretty short!) overlap.
If our second train is to run through on clear signals, this needs to happen - at the very latest - before that second trains passes MC476 signal, which will step up to a double yellow as 474 clears. For typical passenger trains, at least, you can happily run at linespeed on double yellows between Cornbrook and Deansgate, so I'll work on that basis. It takes one minute and six seconds to travel between 476 signal and Castlefield Junction itself. If the second train is instead standing at MC474 signal, you can be onto the junction (at linespeed) in maybe slightly over half that, so in this case I'm certain that trains starting from a stand aren't a problem.
Am I missing something?
That's only because someone agreed that they could take their banked rest days, in lieu of effectively mandatory overtime to get the training course done, whenever they chose to. It seems rather a silly thing to have agreed, given the pretty obvious demand for time off (which is usually declined!) on the days that you mention, but you can hardly blame the staff for making the most of the situation!
As we're just going back over the same old ground again and the content of the article has certainly been well covered I think we can draw a line under this thread here.
- Status