• 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!

NR Report: How to accommodate forecast growth on the CLC corridor?

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,912
Location
Nottingham
I feel you are correct in what you say as both Liverpool to Warrington and Manchester to Warrington are two distinct rail traffic flows.
To some extent, but there is considerable overlap of commuting flows.

The split service could, for example, have a stopping train from Liverpool to Birchwood with a faster train leaving Liverpool later and passing through Birchwood just after the stopper terminated. This would be followed by another stopper, probably starting from Warrington West and serving all stations to Manchester. Similarly in the opposite direction. That way most people would have a direct journey on a stopper but those who don't (such as Widnes to Manchester) could change onto a faster train in Warrington.

At the moment the stopper has to leave Liverpool immediately after the fast and by the time it gets to Manchester the next fast is just behind it. This proposal would mean it only needed to get as far as Birchwood, so could make more stops and be less prone to delays. The infrequently-served Manchester suburban stations would benefit similarly.
It looks as though the end game seems to be some sort of half baked tramification scheme, which would no doubt see the end of through services on the route.
If that's the case then why are proposals discussed that keep through services? I think you're adding two and two and making seven here.

"Higher performance rolling stock" could of course be delivered by electrification, and if the Warrington-Liverpool stoppers were extensions of Merseyrail it would have to be either electrified worked by battery units.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
If that's the case then why are proposals discussed that keep through services? I think you're adding two and two and making seven here.
I think the report is suggesting that the semi-fast through services would be retained until NPR provided faster services between Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester. At that time high frequency Merseyrail and Metrolink services might be introduced to serve the intermediate stations either side of Warrington.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The NR paper examines options for lengthening and increased frequency of the through services then ultimately rejects them in favour of endorsing the rival papers suggestion of splitting services.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Electrification makes no sense in the medium term if the long term goal is to hive off the local services to Metrolink.


Tramification makes no sense if the end goal is to have a half-decent commuter network around Manchester. 30 years after Metrolink was invented to justify government parsimony towards the north, it is still being used for that purpose, with the depressing support of Manchester's local authorities
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
This flawed agenda would leave only one through main line between Liverpool and Manchester.

No wonder the AECOM report is being kept secret.


And that line's stuffed full as it is.

I truly despair about long-term transport planning in this part of the world. It's as if the powers that be actually want less capacity and poor-quality services in future
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
True, I'd momentarily forgotten about NPR (if it happens).

However, whilst I can see the benefits of splitting the stoppers, it seems that if the line is eventually being hived off to Metrolink/Merseyrail, it will be the end of through services full stop.

It seems rather too convenient there is somehow no business case for real improvements to service and capacity, such as train lengthening and electrification. I consider the non-consideration of improvements to off-peak services to be a deliberate attempt to surpress the business case.


You could be forgiven for forgetting about 'Northern Prevarication Rail', as the government seem to have difficulty remembering to get around to planning or building it. I suspect there's more chance of public teleportation booths being installed at Lime St than there is of the current government building any sort of new rail infrastructure to Liverpool (that is, if they build any element of 'NPR' at all)
 

NoMorePacers

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
1,392
Location
Humberside
You could be forgiven for forgetting about 'Northern Prevarication Rail', as the government seem to have difficulty remembering to get around to planning or building it. I suspect there's more chance of public teleportation booths being installed at Lime St than there is of the current government building any sort of new rail infrastructure to Liverpool (that is, if they build any element of 'NPR' at all)
"HS3", "NPR" or whatever stupid name it has this week is just a publicity wagon. Not a single millimetre of it will actually get built.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I am pretty surprised how little commuter traffic there is into Liverpool. Makes it a bit harder to justify extending Merseyrail into Warrington unless someone else is paying for the electrics


Perhaps there would be more with better services. Anyway, the CLC stopper is pretty busy in the peaks out of Lime Street, in my experience
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
More (and higher-value) jobs in Manchester, perchance? And driving into it isn't that painful, either? Merseyrail Electrics is quite popular, but the service being substantially inferior on the "City Lines" side must mean the car is very attractive.


Come and have a look at the rush hour tailbacks which begin on the M62 and stretch much of the way down Edge Lane towards central Liverpool (despite the latter now being a dual carriageway for its entire length), and tell us what is so pain-free about that
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Indeed. FWIW even Merseyrail Electrics is pretty quiet these days. The FLIRTs aren't going to run as double formations most of the time - if they doubled the FLIRT order they could double the capacity with very little else needed at all.


Again, have you actually been to Moorfields or Central at peak times recently, or is this part of your determination to argue on every single thread where Liverpool is mentioned that the city is over-provided for in terms of rail capacity ?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Birchwood has open fields to the south, so a loop or bay would be simple to construct.
Extending (AC electric) Merseyrail from Hunts Cross to Birchwood would remove quite a few conflicts.
Serving Edge Hill to Liverpool South Parkway stations (which also clogs up the main line) could go to the Crewe service again as it once did.
Warrington Central is a particularly awkward place to develop because of the viaduct and new southern bypass, but there's plenty of turnround space to the east.
Otherwise the intermediate stations are in built-up areas with limited open space (Warrington West being a recent example).
HS2 will cross the CLC to the west of Glazebrook, and its "Liverpool" connections will be further south around Rostherne.

I haven't counted them but my perception is that the CLC is a fairly elevated route with not many low overbridges, so wiring should not be outrageously expensive.
The diversion into Lime St at Allerton with its slow crossovers cripples capacity on both original routes.
My experience of the route suggests quite low usage at most intermediate stations, but with overcrowding at the limited-stop stations of Parkway and Warrington Central.
Warrington Central has slightly more passenger usage than Bank Quay.


While i agree with your impression that the limited stop stations are busier, that may be a lot to do with how extraordinarily slow the stopper is. That's why I wouldn't be too unhappy about stopping services being split, with a Warrington overlap as you suggest (it's a big enough town to generate some internal.traffic, particularly to workplaces around Birchwood). An electrified Merseyrail service would be quicker into Liverpool than the current stopper. Something similar west of Warrington could be built for the out-of-Manchester stopper - ideally, a new / revived branch at Widnes to a more centrally located station than the current one.

The crucial thing is to maintain some limited stop services so that it remains a viable through route. What's the point of speeding up services from Warrington to Liverpool if a passenger reaches Warrington Central (or Birchwood, or wherever the changeover is) and then has to trundle by tram (assuming he or she would find space to board it) into Manchester ? Even if Northern Prevarication Rail is built, is it really going to cut actual journey times from the suburban areas and smaller towns where many people actually.live if they are forced to travel along spoke routes to the nearest hub station, rather than using existing through routes ? This philosophy destroyed much of the interurban network between Liverpool and Manchester 50 years ago (closing Ditton-Altrincham, making the Kirkby route a stub end) and we should not repeat those same mistakes.

You are correct as well that Allerton Junction is a particular pinch point and would remain so even if the conflict between eastbound services and terminating Merseyrails at Hunts Cross was removed. Perhaps some form of remodelling is required here, taking advantage of the the possibility of slicing a bit off Allerton depot to enable this, and dovetailing with a restored 4 track section as far to the east along this stretch as is possible.

Another factor which is being overlooked is that, if you tramify to Warrington with 750V DC, you lock in the current absurd requirement to run freight trains from Trafford Park through Castlefield. Giving them a route onthe WCML which avoids central Manchester (eg using part of the old CLC bypass to build a connecting line at Warrington) would justify proper heavy rail electrification east of Warrington by itself
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
The NR paper examines options for lengthening and increased frequency of the through services then ultimately rejects them in favour of endorsing the rival papers suggestion of splitting services.
The NR report does say that the AECOM study recommends that the existing through semi-fasts be retained. That would give the option of lengthening them as required by demand growth. See p.24:
The proposal drawn up by AECOM on behalf of Merseytravel, Warrington Borough Council and Transport for Greater Manchester, that was developed in parallel with this CMSP work, has suggested that in order to accommodate growth along the line and simultaneously improve connectivity, the following interventions could be introduced: the local trains could be split into two portions, one from Liverpool to Birchwood and the other from Warrington West to Manchester Oxford Road. It also suggests that the retention of the existing semi-fast trains could generate a stronger economic case with better value for money. This proposal could potentially deliver a number of benefits:
• Facilitate the operation of more reliable services by introducing a service pattern which offers greater flexibility;
• Improve connectivity to and from all intermediate stations which would avoid the operation of skip/ stop services;
• Introduce alternative rolling stock with the capability of delivering faster journey times, with the incremental revenue and economic benefits making a substantial contribution to the stronger economic appraisal.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I think the report is suggesting that the semi-fast through services would be retained until NPR provided faster services between Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester. At that time high frequency Merseyrail and Metrolink services might be introduced to serve the intermediate stations either side of Warrington.


If and when Northern Prevarication Rail ever hoves into view, hopefully the capacity released by it will be redeployed to give Manchester a proper heavy rail suburban network, rather than the city continuing to pretend that Metrolink is an adequate way of serving a conurbation or nearly 3 million people (and large towns some way outside it)
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
"HS3", "NPR" or whatever stupid name it has this week is just a publicity wagon. Not a single millimetre of it will actually get built.


What depresses me is the extent to which a certain element pretend otherwise, despite them living in places that are most desperately in need of the extra capacity a new long distance line would bring.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,851
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Again, have you actually been to Moorfields or Central at peak times recently, or is this part of your determination to argue on every single thread where Liverpool is mentioned that the city is over-provided for in terms of rail capacity ?

I'm well aware that Liverpool Central Station has an overcrowding problem. However, so few services are now 6-car and I think that says a fair bit.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,851
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If and when Northern Prevarication Rail ever hoves into view, hopefully the capacity released by it will be redeployed to give Manchester a proper heavy rail suburban network, rather than the city continuing to pretend that Metrolink is an adequate way of serving a conurbation or nearly 3 million people (and large towns some way outside it)

I think Metrolink very much can be, though it does need some capacity expansions, e.g. a move to all services being full-length trams. It's not a classic street tramway, it's a German-style Stadtbahn, which is more like an U-Bahn with street running. There will be scope for improvements over time like possibly the building of a third city crossing in a tunnel a bit like the Den Haag Tramtunnel.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
The NR paper examines options for lengthening and increased frequency of the through services then ultimately rejects them in favour of endorsing the rival papers suggestion of splitting services.


Is splitting services actually going to help without new infrastructure to enable trains to terminate without blocking the running lines ? Or is this another example of the rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic which passes for transport policy in the north of England ?

Actually that analogy is inapt. If the authorities responsible for our transport system had run the White Star Line, the Titanic would probably still be a keel on the slip way at Harland & Wolff.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I'm well aware that Liverpool Central Station has an overcrowding problem. However, so few services are now 6-car and I think that says a fair bit.


Your approach is extraordinary. 'Merseyrail is quiet'. 'No it isn't, its main stations are crammed'. 'Er yes they are, but it can't be crowded because they aren't running 6 car trains'.

Maybe the 'fair bit' that the lack of 6 car trains says is that the rolling stock is worn out, and that there are not enough reliable trains available to run sufficient 6 car services to actually carry passengers in comfort ?

When I travel on the Northern line (usually on Southport services), the trains are usually standing room only from Crosby or Waterloo, outside as well as inside the peaks. It's not uncommon for passengers to be left behind at the last few stations inbound. Passengers don't suddenly evaporate when they board trains.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I think Metrolink very much can be, though it does need some capacity expansions, e.g. a move to all services being full-length trams. It's not a classic street tramway, it's a German-style Stadtbahn, which is more like an U-Bahn with street running. There will be scope for improvements over time like possibly the building of a third city crossing in a tunnel a bit like the Den Haag Tramtunnel.


So successful has this light rail system been at providing sufficient capacity to meet demand that heavy fair-trade infrastructure is now being proposed to prevent it grinding to a halt.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,912
Location
Nottingham
Is splitting services actually going to help without new infrastructure to enable trains to terminate without blocking the running lines ? Or is this another example of the rearrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic which passes for transport policy in the north of England ?
The linked report mentions a new crossover and loop near Warrington West, but only a new crossover at Birchwood.
So successful has this light rail system been at providing sufficient capacity to meet demand that heavy fair-trade infrastructure is now being proposed to prevent it grinding to a halt.
Or to put it another way, so successful has this light rail system been at generating extra demand that capacity increases are needed to cope. Not necessarily because it's light rail, but because (like Merseyrail) it provides a frequent and generally attractive service to the places most people want to go to.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
. Or to put it another way, so successful has this light rail system been at generating extra demand that capacity increases are needed to cope. Not necessarily because it's light rail, but because (like Merseyrail) it provides a frequent and generally attractive service to the places most people want to go to.


Or to put it still another way, it's popular because people need to find some way of getting around the large swathes of a conurbation of 3 million people which have been denuded of heavy rail services (including in some cases frequent, fast, electrified commuter services)
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The NR report does say that the AECOM study recommends that the existing through semi-fasts be retained. That would give the option of lengthening them as required by demand growth. See p.24:

Yes this on page 19 and page 24,
The preferred option emerging from the AECOM report assumed the stopping services would be split into two, with trains from Liverpool terminating at Birchwood. Similarly, the Manchester portions would terminate at Warrington West. The existing semi-fast trains in this specification would be unchanged.

The proposal drawn up by AECOM on behalf of Merseytravel, Warrington Borough Council and Transport for Greater Manchester, that was developed in parallel with this CMSP work, has
suggested that in order to accommodate growth along the line and simultaneously improve connectivity, the following interventions could be introduced: the local trains could be split into two portions, one from Liverpool to Birchwood and the other from Warrington West to Manchester Oxford Road. It also suggests that the retention of the existing semi-fast trains could generate a stronger economic case with better value for money.

Though the stronger economic case its referring to isn't the services but the differing methodology in the reports NR report is purely focusing on catering for passenger growth while the AECOM report is looking at increasing connectivity (journey options), the strategic future of the line upto 2026 and beyond.

(page 3)
This package of suggested interventions offered a stronger economic business case as a result of its broader remit.

(page 23)
The business case demonstrates that the alternative proposition described could generate a benefit cost ratio above 2.0. However, to do so, this assumes the following:
• a new station at Warrington West;
• faster journey times achieved by different types of rolling stock;
• alternative growth forecasting scenarios;
• calculation of benefits across the day, rather than just a peak hour or peak period.

The initial analysis produced by the consultants demonstrated that the economic appraisal could generate significantly better results compared with the majority of the scenarios tested by Network Rail.

(Warrington West has just opened, the AECOM report incorporated passenger forecasts for the station from 2016 while the NR report assumed it didn't exist.)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,912
Location
Nottingham
Though the stronger economic case its referring to isn't the services but the differing methodology in the reports NR report is purely focusing on catering for passenger growth while the AECOM report is looking at increasing connectivity (journey options), the strategic future of the line upto 2026 and beyond.
Nevertheless, the NR report recommends taking the AECOM proposal forward, rather than one of those they tested in their own report. If they thought there was any question about which option was best then they should have recommended evaluating all of them on some common basis. So either they are guilty of a faulty analysis, or they are confident that despite the differences in methodology that proposal is the best one.
 

Confused52

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2018
Messages
258
I'm not sure I can think of a single secondary line in the country that would benefit more from some knitting than the CLC. You could take ten minutes off an all-stops run easily.

It's interesting to see that a return to elements of the reliable (ish) pre-1998 timetable is being considered again, namely splitting the stoppers - but I can't quite see why overlapping them makes sense. They used to terminate at Warrington Central and that worked fine.

I would suggest that the reason is access to jobs in Warrington. Merseyside/St Helens are building a new industrial area adjacent to the Omega area at Warrington and the rail/bus access is via Warrington West and the jobs around Birchwood are accessible by rail and bus from Birchwood station. Hence the plan to overlap the opportunities in Warrington from both PTEs.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I would suggest that the reason is access to jobs in Warrington. Merseyside/St Helens are building a new industrial area adjacent to the Omega area at Warrington and the rail/bus access is via Warrington West and the jobs around Birchwood are accessible by rail and bus from Birchwood station. Hence the plan to overlap the opportunities in Warrington from both PTEs.


Precisely. Warrington has long been one of the more economically dynamic towns in the north west and should generate a.lot of demand for inbound rail travel.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,722
That is ambitious, some of the stops are too close to get much more than ½ minute.
Well Class 395 Vs Sprinter demonstrates the gains possible.

And I know 140mph units would be overkill but I chose it for having almost all axles powered and huge installed power
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top