8 Northern routes to not return to full service in December

[peters]

Knutsford is not a particularly large town and 1 tph should suffice.

And there lies the problem. You're ignoring:
a) What proportion of people in the town use the train.
b) How many people from outside the town travel to the town by train on a regular basis. In the case of Knutsford and Northwich that can be hundreds each day, something you don't get in the Greater Manchester dormitory villages with trains up to every 15 minutes.
c) That many Manchester suburbs have a frequent, low cost bus in to the city which is sometimes a better option than the train. That doesn't extend to places further out and even if it did it would be less viable than a train due to how long a bus would take to get in to central Manchester.
d) What journeys people are making. If people have to change trains when travelling from say Knutsford to London then a less frequent connecting service increases the likelihood of them driving to a station with a direct train.

Evidence shows that both Knutsford and Northwich have very high usage compared to the size of the towns, therefore it's completely wrong to dismiss the idea of an additional service based on population alone.

I wonder if you'd be still so against Cheshire towns having good public transport if Metrolink services start having their frequency reduced due to fewer connections being made at interchanges like Altrincham. They are already running using emergency funding from the government, which isn't permanent, so Metrolink service cuts is a real possibility.

With respect to the point about local bus services around Altrincham (routes 280-287), TfGM could save money by cancelling them in the evenings when they appear merely to carry fresh air. Knutsford is not a particularly large town and 1 tph should suffice.

And there's the 288 and CAT5 which could stop serving Altrincham altogether if TfGM funding wasn't made available. I'm pretty sure in the past the Warrington operator stopped running the Lymm to Altrincham section of Warrington services at off-peak times, with TfGM funding allowing them to be reinstated.

If there were more services would there be more users of them, or would the users simply spread the load across more trains?

One question is perhaps would people at a station like Bramhall be more likely to use the train if the train which arrived had ample space on it instead of being overcrowded? The same question could be asked regarding some services arriving in Knutsford, would Knutsford's usage be even higher if the Northwich passengers hadn't already taken most of the seats on the train before the Knutsford passengers get to board?

 

[jfollows]

One question is perhaps would people at a station like Bramhall be more likely to use the train if the train which arrived had ample space on it instead of being overcrowded?

That's also a fair question. I can certainly say that back in the 1970s the far more frequent services then were also crowded. From 1977 I got on at Prestbury, so usually had no problem with a window seat, but from 1970 to 1976 at Poynton it was usual but not guaranteed, and trains will have been fairly full by Bramhall. In the evenings I groaned if I saw the unit number in the range 001-015 on the 17:15 or 17:43 services (the 17:30 was usually an AM10), because it meant the possibility of being crammed (six-a-side) into a non-corridor compartment.

It was also unthinkable back in the 1970s that the bus was an acceptable alternative service from Poynton. OK, so we had season tickets, so the bus would have also cost money, although the fare was 2p for school children as far as the border between Greater Manchester and Cheshire (at Five Ways). There was then a frequent 190 service Manchester-Poynton which ran limited stop for the first part of the route, but it took for ever. The train was fast and reliable. Only the former nowadays I fear. The only reason for train unreliability was train strikes, when we all piled into the family car and got taken to Woodford Church for the service to Manchester which passed my school on the way into Manchester and only cost 2p.

Today I expect the bus is infrequent and unreliable and slower than it was back then because of traffic.

 

[daodao]

That's also a fair question. I can certainly say that back in the 1970s the far more frequent services then were also crowded. From 1977 I got on at Prestbury, so usually had no problem with a window seat, but from 1970 to 1976 at Poynton it was usual but not guaranteed, and trains will have been fairly full by Bramhall. In the evenings I groaned if I saw the unit number in the range 001-015 on the 17:15 or 17:43 services (the 17:30 was usually an AM10), because it meant the possibility of being crammed (six-a-side) into a non-corridor compartment.

It was also unthinkable back in the 1970s that the bus was an acceptable alternative service from Poynton. OK, so we had season tickets, so the bus would have also cost money, although the fare was 2p for school children as far as the border between Greater Manchester and Cheshire (at Five Ways). There was then a frequent 190 service Manchester-Poynton which ran limited stop for the first part of the route, but it took for ever. The train was fast and reliable. Only the former nowadays I fear. The only reason for train unreliability was train strikes, when we all piled into the family car and got taken to Woodford Church for the service to Manchester which passed my school on the way into Manchester and only cost 2p.

Today I expect the bus is infrequent and unreliable and slower than it was back then because of traffic.

In the 1960s, there were 3 regular services from M/c to Woodford, run by NWRCC, each every 30 minutes Mon-Sat:

20 Woodford to M/c Piccadilly via Stockport Road (joint with MCT/Stockport);​

31 Woodford to M/c Piccadilly via Wilmslow Road (joint with MCT); and​

32 Higher Poynton to M/c LMS via Princess Road.​

There was also NWRCC route 77 from Stockport to Wilmslow.
Nowadays, there are very few bus services to Woodford, just the 42B hourly daytime Mon-Sun, the descendant of route 31. That is despite the development of the former Avro Woodford aerodrome as a massive housing estate.

 

[jfollows]

In the 1960s, there were 3 regular services from M/c to Woodford, run by NWRCC, each every 30 minutes Mon-Sat: 20 Woodford to M/c Piccadilly via Stockport Road (joint with MCT/Stockport), 31 Woodford to M/c Piccadilly via Wilmslow Road (joint with MCT) and 32 Higher Poynton to M/c LMS via Princess Road. There was also NWRCC route 77 from Stockport to Wilmslow. Nowadays, there are very few bus services to Woodford, just the 42B hourly daytime Mon-Sun, the descendant of route 31. That is despite the development of the former Avro Woodford aerodrome as a massive housing estate.

Thank you - in the 1970s I remember the 32 with destination "Middlewood" which I think became 232, but I never used it and couldn't remember its other terminus. After 1974 Woodford Church was in Greater Manchester, which made a difference I guess, and Poynton wasn't following the "keep Poynton in Cheshire" campaign. The Woodford service I remember was something like the 378, but that might be wrong (I think it had three digits in its number, one of which was "8").

And, completely irrelevant, Woodford Airshow was brilliant! Our house in Poynton was well aligned with the runway so even if we didn't go to the show it was a great day to be in the garden!

 

[Efini92]

I’m surprised they don’t stop the Blackburn to Rochdale outside of the peaks all together.

 

[jonnyfan]

The biggest problem with any additional services through Stockport is the lack of capacity because of the long distance services taking priority over local services. Perhaps the current situation will change the demand on long distance services. Currently the trains that are busy are the local services, long distance ones are carting about fresh air. 1 train per hour (with double units) Cross Country could be the new norm, and maybe 3 trains per hour to London could be dropped to 2.

Then extra Macclesfield & Stoke services can be provided and the Chester line can finally get 2 trains per hour.

Otherwise unless additional capacity is provided (grade separation of junctions or waiting for HS2 to remove long distance services) then there will be no space for more local services through Stockport.

 

[158756]

I’m surprised they don’t stop the Blackburn to Rochdale outside of the peaks all together.

They are aren't they? I assume the reduction to 1tph means only the trains which run through to Clitheroe will run, as in the current timetable. Unless you mean the line between Blackburn and Bolton should become the North West equivalent of Knottingley to Goole?

 

[Jack Hay]

Knutsford is not a particularly large town and 1 tph should suffice.

It's time to bring some proper analysis to this debate. I have worked with train planners and there is a lot more to planning services and determining service frequency than user daodao and some others seem to think. Several years ago, TfGM published its approach to determining train service frequency based on annualised station footfall. TfGM's approach and its service thresholds were later adopted by TfN so they apply widely. From memory the thresholds were these (and if anyone has a link to the current policy please post it here for the benefit of all):-
Stations with annual footfall less than 10,000 - peak hour service only
Footfall between 10,000 & 25,000 - infrequent service, usually every 2 hours (each way; all figures are each way)
Between 25,000 and 50,000 - hourly service
Between 50,000 and 500,000 - two trains an hour (but the 50,000 figure was recognised to be too low, and was later raised to 100,000 IIRC)
Footfall more than 500,000 - four trains per hour.

Applying this to the Mid Cheshire Line, because it's been mentioned already and is one of the lines I know: Knutsford is on the threshold where it merits four trains per hour each way so it is very badly served at only one train per hour and no wonder there are regular complaints here from users of Knutsford. The other busy Mid Cheshire stations easily merit two trains per hour; if the threshold is now 100,000 this first brings in Knutsford of course, Altrincham, Northwich and Greenbank which all have footfall over 200,000 (probably 400,000 at ALT and 500,000 as mentioned at KNF). Then, also over 100,000, there are both Hale and Navigation Road; but they are both physically very close to Altrincham and NVR has trams too, so when planning the service you might argue an exception and say that either or both Navigation Road and Hale don't actually get 2tph once Altrincham has that. Two trains an hour at ALT would probably abstract passengers from NVR and HAL. It's a balance between service provision and end-to-end journey times for the train. Then at the other end of the scale, a few stations on the Mid Cheshire are actually over-served; notably Ashley which is the only station on that line with footfall less than 10,000 so a better balance would be struck for other users of the line, frankly, if most trains skipped Ashley. There is a lot more science in this than simply saying 'so and so is a small town so it doesn't deserve good service.

 

[daodao]

It's time to bring some proper analysis to this debate. I have worked with train planners and there is a lot more to planning services and determining service frequency than user daodao and some others seem to think. Several years ago, TfGM published its approach to determining train service frequency based on annualised station footfall. TfGM's approach and its service thresholds were later adopted by TfN so they apply widely. From memory the thresholds were these (and if anyone has a link to the current policy please post it here for the benefit of all):-
Stations with annual footfall less than 10,000 - peak hour service only
Footfall between 10,000 & 25,000 - infrequent service, usually every 2 hours (each way; all figures are each way)
Between 25,000 and 50,000 - hourly service
Between 50,000 and 500,000 - two trains an hour (but the 50,000 figure was recognised to be too low, and was later raised to 100,000 IIRC)
Footfall more than 500,000 - four trains per hour.

Applying this to the Mid Cheshire Line, because it's been mentioned already and is one of the lines I know: Knutsford is on the threshold where it merits four trains per hour each way so it is very badly served at only one train per hour and no wonder there are regular complaints here from users of Knutsford. The other busy Mid Cheshire stations easily merit two trains per hour; if the threshold is now 100,000 this first brings in Knutsford of course, Altrincham, Northwich and Greenbank which all have footfall over 200,000 (probably 400,000 at ALT and 500,000 as mentioned at KNF). Then, also over 100,000, there are both Hale and Navigation Road; but they are both physically very close to Altrincham and NVR has trams too, so when planning the service you might argue an exception and say that either or both Navigation Road and Hale don't actually get 2tph once Altrincham has that. Two trains an hour at ALT would probably abstract passengers from NVR and HAL. It's a balance between service provision and end-to-end journey times for the train. Then at the other end of the scale, a few stations on the Mid Cheshire are actually over-served; notably Ashley which is the only station on that line with footfall less than 10,000 so a better balance would be struck for other users of the line, frankly, if most trains skipped Ashley. There is a lot more science in this than simply saying 'so and so is a small town so it doesn't deserve good service.

All I stated was that rural Cheshire with its small towns and villages is very different from a major conurbation and, except for a handful of larger towns, can't justify high public transport service frequencies. In addition, if service frequency drops below a certain level, that per se is a disincentive to potential travellers and reduces demand.

There is also a specific issue with the mid Cheshire line in that the diversion via Stockport lengthens the journey time to Manchester and there are capacity issues at Stockport and on the single line sections from there to Deansgate Junction. Except at peak times, it is far quicker and easier to drive from places served by the Mid Cheshire line into Manchester or to drive to a Metrolink station within Greater Manchester if one doesn't wish to have to park in the city centre.

 

[Efini92]

They are aren't they? I assume the reduction to 1tph means only the trains which run through to Clitheroe will run, as in the current timetable. Unless you mean the line between Blackburn and Bolton should become the North West equivalent of Knottingley to Goole?

I meant the service via Todmorden

 

[peters]

All I stated was that rural Cheshire with its small towns and villages is very different from a major conurbation

If I wanted to go on a rural bus ride I would actually choose the 247 between Altrincham and The Trafford Centre. The remote and rural area between Altrincham and Carrington is far more rural than 99% of what's within the current Cheshire boundary, I'm surprised a bus can even fit down some of those roads. In fact I did an advanced driving course which was supposed to have a lesson on very rural roads and the instructor decided the area between Altrincham and Carrington was the best area to do that, even though there's rural roads just down the road from me! Like I mentioned already any assertion that Greater Manchester is automatically urban and Cheshire is automatically rural is incorrect as the boundary is just a random line someone drew on a map, Ashley is further north than most of the airport, if you weren't aware ,so there's no real reason why rural Sinderland and Dunham went in to Greater Manchester and little Ashley went in to Cheshire. I'm presuming anyone living in Ashley would go to Altrincham if they wanted to go to the supermarket, as it would be the nearest, just like for those living in Sinderland and Dunham.

Except at peak times, it is far quicker and easier to drive from places served by the Mid Cheshire line into Manchester or to drive to a Metrolink station within Greater Manchester if one doesn't wish to have to park in the city centre.

Of course not everyone has a car. Even in Plumley where most people do have one, there's a number of parents who drop off their young adult children at the station for work as they either haven't passed their test yet or haven't saved up enough for the car they want, as well as some pensioners who have given up their cars. As we're about to go in to a period of mass unemployment I hope you're not suggesting those in Cheshire shouldn't have opportunities available to them unless they have a car. You might not want public transport subsided but without public transport subsidies it'll mean taxpayers will pay more to keep people on out-of-work benefits.

Knutsford is on the threshold where it merits four trains per hour each way so it is very badly served at only one train per hour and no wonder there are regular complaints here from users of Knutsford. The other busy Mid Cheshire stations easily merit two trains per hour

And using that analysis a more sensible point can be made than what @daodao is saying about services in Cheshire. 2 trains per hour between Greenbank and Manchester is justified and the fact the line beyond Hale isn't in Greater Manchester doesn't change that. However, in the case of Knutsford while other stations with similar usage get 4 trains an hour that would be difficult to justify for a Cheshire line when Knutsford is the only station between Altrincham and Chester with that level of usage. Also, there's no fast services on the line which could make an additional call at Knutsford, like there is in the case of Birchwood and Widnes.

 

[Geeves]

I wonder what the old regime at Abellio/ Serco/ Arriva, who put up with years of criticism for every little perceived failure (even when they were complying with the franchise requirements) will be thinking when they see the way that people meekly accept these long term cuts imposed by a "nationalised" Northern?

Just imagine if the old TOCs had reduced routes like Rose Hill Marple to just a token service; there'd be demonstrations, there'd be petitions, there'd be outrage about these wicked private companies cutting valuable public services.

I appreciate that Covid means some cuts are made, but people seem to acquiesce to reductions imposed by a "nationalised" railway a lot easier than when big bad profit hungry private companies do it.

The difference to between then and now is that there are really no passengers around to realize what is being done to the service. In Abellio times you would have people falling out of the doors on the current levels but this isn't a problem now and for how long, no one knows. The only plus side for the few passengers left is that the trains all run on time now even if you have to wait longer for it to arrive, so when you factor in that the old service consistently ran half an hour late some people might actually be getting to work earlier!

It makes no difference that its run by the government now the cuts would likely have been the same or maybe worse!

 

[daodao]

... Like I mentioned already any assertion that Greater Manchester is automatically urban and Cheshire is automatically rural is incorrect as the boundary is just a random line someone drew on a map, Ashley is further north than most of the airport, if you weren't aware ,so there's no real reason why rural Sinderland and Dunham went in to Greater Manchester and little Ashley went in to Cheshire. I'm presuming anyone living in Ashley would go to Altrincham if they wanted to go to the supermarket, as it would be the nearest, just like for those living in Sinderland and Dunham....

Greater Manchester is predominantly urban and Cheshire predominantly rural, but I am well aware of the exceptions; I now live in the Bowdon/Dunham/Warburton ward of Trafford Council and used to live in urban Macclesfield. The Greater Manchester boundary is quite logical in this area; it runs along the line of the River Bollin, which though small, is a significant barrier to road communication, with only 3 road bridges across it between the Ship Canal and east of Ashley.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

The Ellesmere Port to Leeds service seems to have been canned. I used this for a while when it started up as I used to work in Manchester next to Victoria station. There isn't even a replacement service from Chester.
The evening service to Ellesmere Port still runs I note.

 

[peters]

The Ellesmere Port to Leeds service seems to have been canned. I used this for a while when it started up as I used to work in Manchester next to Victoria station. There isn't even a replacement service from Chester.
The evening service to Ellesmere Port still runs I note.

As it's not on the list of services (for the Central and West regions) which aren't returning to a full timetable in December, then presumably that means that service is returning to a full service in December.

 

[Llandudno]

The Ellesmere Port to Leeds service seems to have been canned. I used this for a while when it started up as I used to work in Manchester next to Victoria station. There isn't even a replacement service from Chester.
The evening service to Ellesmere Port still runs I note.

All part of the master plan, make the service totally unusable, then Northern will cite lack of demand and be able to run all Leeds services to Chester instead of a couple of token Ellesmere Port trains.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

All part of the master plan, make the service totally unusable, then Northern will cite lack of demand and be able to run all Leeds services to Chester instead of a couple of token Ellesmere Port trains.

Yes, that's my thoughts...

 

[Ianno87]

All part of the master plan, make the service totally unusable, then Northern will cite lack of demand and be able to run all Leeds services to Chester instead of a couple of token Ellesmere Port trains.

Yes, that's my thoughts...

I'd still argue it's better to run everything to Chester to benefit more passengers overall, not to Ellesmere Port in the hope of a few passengers per train (who would probably railhead to Helsby anyway).

 

[Purple Orange]

Re the Knutsford debate @daodao and @peters is it not time that Metrolink Knutsford was taken more seriously? From a timing perspective it makes no difference: Alti-City Centre is roughly 30 mins, Knutsford to Alti is 15 mins, giving 45 mins in total. The journey time from Knutsford today is 46 mins to Piccadilly. Of the 10 trams per hour to Altrincham, 5 could easily kick-off at Knutsford.

There is a strange rational I read on this forum of a given town or area having to settle for 1 or 2 tph, because the poster sees it as not deserving of more. Yet if that town was on a light rail network, 5 tph seems comparatively tiny, yet such an improved frequency on heavy rail.

 

[geoffk]

Applying this to the Mid Cheshire Line, because it's been mentioned already and is one of the lines I know: Knutsford is on the threshold where it merits four trains per hour each way so it is very badly served at only one train per hour and no wonder there are regular complaints here from users of Knutsford. The other busy Mid Cheshire stations easily merit two trains per hour; if the threshold is now 100,000 this first brings in Knutsford of course, Altrincham, Northwich and Greenbank which all have footfall over 200,000 (probably 400,000 at ALT and 500,000 as mentioned at KNF). Then, also over 100,000, there are both Hale and Navigation Road; but they are both physically very close to Altrincham and NVR has trams too, so when planning the service you might argue an exception and say that either or both Navigation Road and Hale don't actually get 2tph once Altrincham has that. Two trains an hour at ALT would probably abstract passengers from NVR and HAL. It's a balance between service provision and end-to-end journey times for the train. Then at the other end of the scale, a few stations on the Mid Cheshire are actually over-served; notably Ashley which is the only station on that line with footfall less than 10,000 so a better balance would be struck for other users of the line, frankly, if most trains skipped Ashley. There is a lot more science in this than simply saying 'so and so is a small town so it doesn't deserve good service.

Then there is the aspiration of a new service to Middlewich and Sandbach, leaving the Chester line at Northwich.

 

[peters]

Of the 10 trams per hour to Altrincham, 5 could easily kick-off at Knutsford.

I'm not sure it's 'easily' given it would involve the design and purchase of hybrid tram-train vehicles, a new turnback facility would need to be added at Knutsford, as well as an upgrade of the signalling system which currently requires a service to wait at Mobberley signal box if the previous service hasn't gone past Plumley signal box. Another question to be considered is whether the tram-trains would be electric and if they are would the shared section use AC wiring or would it be cheaper DC wiring meaning switching freight to electric at a later date would be a greater challenge. I once heard about an aspiration for tram-trains to run to Northwich and then to run up the road to Greenbank and Hartford stations and another for a train-train to start on the streets of Chester and then run to Manchester via Altrincham, obviously they are even more ambitious and questions would have to be asked about toilet and cycle provision if the journeys are made too long or run less frequently than the current Metrolink frequency.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'm not sure it's 'easily' given it would involve the design and purchase of hybrid tram-train vehicles, a new turnback facility would need to be added at Knutsford, as well as an upgrade of the signalling system which currently requires a service to wait at Mobberley signal box if the previous service hasn't gone past Plumley signal box. Another question to be considered is whether the tram-trains would be electric and if they are would the shared section use AC wiring or would it be cheaper DC wiring meaning switching freight to electric at a later date would be a greater challenge. I once heard about an aspiration for tram-trains to run to Northwich and then to run up the road to Greenbank and Hartford stations and another for a train-train to start on the streets of Chester and then run to Manchester via Altrincham, obviously they are even more ambitious and questions would have to be asked about toilet and cycle provision if the journeys are made too long or run less frequently than the current Metrolink frequency.

Sorry I should clarify my useage of “easily”, by which I am referring to passenger demand, whereby passenger perspective is purely my point of view on this forum in the main. I appreciate that tram-train technology will need to be introduced.

 

[Llandudno]

Yes, that's my thoughts...

Probably end up as a parliamentary service every Saturday:
Ellesmere Port - Piccadilly- Stockport- Stalybridge!!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people actually use it? Could it actually be an early closure/mothballing? It's had a Parly level of service for over 25 years.

 

[jamesst]

I'd still argue it's better to run everything to Chester to benefit more passengers overall, not to Ellesmere Port in the hope of a few passengers per train (who would probably railhead to Helsby anyway).

Couldn't agree more, theres literally no point in it

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I'd still argue it's better to run everything to Chester to benefit more passengers overall, not to Ellesmere Port in the hope of a few passengers per train (who would probably railhead to Helsby anyway).

Probably would be best.

 

[tbtc]

Probably end up as a parliamentary service every Saturday:
Ellesmere Port - Piccadilly- Stockport- Stalybridge!!!

I've suggested before that we give up on pretending that these box-ticking services are in any way "meaningful" and reduce them to a Saturday "rail tour" (e.g. Ellesmere Port to Goole via Denton and various obscure chords)

How many people actually use it? Could it actually be an early closure/mothballing? It's had a Parly level of service for over 25 years.

Parliamentary?

It's had four services a day each way for most of those years, as I understood it - far from the "once a week" minimum service requirements for something to be "parliamentary" IMHO.

(it may have only had the minimum level of service required in the franchise commitments, but the same will be true of pretty much all of the ex-Provincial services across the UK, given how heavily loss making they are)

 

[LOL The Irony]

Re the Knutsford debate @daodao and @peters is it not time that Metrolink Knutsford was taken more seriously? From a timing perspective it makes no difference: Alti-City Centre is roughly 30 mins, Knutsford to Alti is 15 mins, giving 45 mins in total. The journey time from Knutsford today is 46 mins to Piccadilly. Of the 10 trams per hour to Altrincham, 5 could easily kick-off at Knutsford.

One of those things that sound good on paper but gets torpedoed in practice. Hurdle number 1 is getting TfGM to pay for it beyond Hale. Short answer, they wont. Long answer, it's not their problem beyond the boundary of Trafford & Cheshire East. Hurdle number 2 is getting it to fit in between the freights which consist of; The Brunner Mond/Tata Chemicals Europe/ICI trains to Lostock, the waste trains from Northernden to Runcorn and the Drax trains. Hurdle 3 is the passenger trains, 1 per hour (under normal circumstances), which will most likely still have to run. Hurdle 4 is the fact that south of Altrincham, the line speed is 60.

 

[Ianno87]

One of those things that sound good on paper but gets torpedoed in practice. Hurdle number 1 is getting TfGM to pay for it beyond Hale. Short answer, they wont. Long answer, it's not their problem beyond the boundary of Trafford & Cheshire East. Hurdle number 2 is getting it to fit in between the freights which consist of; The Brunner Mond/Tata Chemicals Europe/ICI trains to Lostock, the waste trains from Northernden to Runcorn and the Drax trains. Hurdle 3 is the passenger trains, 1 per hour (under normal circumstances), which will most likely still have to run. Hurdle 4 is the fact that south of Altrincham, the line speed is 60.

It always seems to have a relatively weak case whenever TfGM examine it. I think it boils down to lack of real population density after Hale to sustain a frequent service until you're at Knutsford itself.

 

[Statto]

Liverpool- Wigan hourly, this service is heaving at 2tph plus the additional fast especially Liverpool-St Helens, Prescot will go from 2tph to 1tph that's not great for a quite sizeable town