Campaign to restore passenger services on the Middlewich Link Line

[LOL The Irony]

Rail North committee papers have now stated that the second hourly service will be Altrincham to Chester instead of Piccadilly to Greenbank, because of lack of paths between Piccadilly and Stockport.

So the end that needs more trains isn't getting them and the end that has enough is getting more? OK then. Perfectly fine logic not even an idiot could rip into.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Anyways I think this might need a new thread...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rail North committee papers have now stated that the second hourly service will be Altrincham to Chester instead of Piccadilly to Greenbank, because of lack of paths between Piccadilly and Stockport. See December 2018 timetable changes (some now confirmed scrapped) - contagion spreads. Stopping patterns not detailed, but I would hope that the Piccadilly service will now become semi-fast. That would still retain a direct service between Mobberley and Chester to keep the MCRUA Chairman happy!

No chance of paths for a direct service from Middlewich to Piccadilly.

Yep, that's somewhat bad news in the short term for Middlewich. It's going to be pretty hard to sustain a business case for opening a new line and station, just so you can provide trains to Altrincham! Even with Metrolink available to complete journeys to Manchester, that'll be quite a deterrent to using the train for many people. (And I wonder how well used the new Chester-Altrincham train is going to be).

On the upside, I imagine the obvious idiocy of terminating a train at Altrincham is going to cause some political pressure to be put on the Government / NR / TfN to investigate infrastructure improvements to allow more trains - either more trains between Stockport and Manchester, or if that is too difficult, to at least allow trains to terminate at Stockport from the South (which would be a little bit more useful than terminating at Altrincham). Maybe if there were infrastructure improvements around there, that would make it easier to build a business case for Middlewich?

 

[Greybeard33]

The semi-fast service is not very good for the likes of myself who use Navigation Road to get to Stockport for onward connections.

But the Piccadilly service will have to continue to call at Navigation Road, even if it becomes semi-fast between Altrincham and Chester. Otherwise Navigation Road will only be served by Metrolink!

 

[Altfish]

But the Piccadilly service will have to continue to call at Navigation Road, even if it becomes semi-fast between Altrincham and Chester. Otherwise Navigation Road will only be served by Metrolink!

Well, I agree, but the semi-fast is not scheduled to stop there.

 

[no commute yet]

Yep, that's somewhat bad news in the short term for Middlewich. It's going to be pretty hard to sustain a business case for opening a new line and station, just so you can provide trains to Altrincham! Even with Metrolink available to complete journeys to Manchester, that'll be quite a deterrent to using the train for many people. (And I wonder how well used the new Chester-Altrincham train is going to be).

On the upside, I imagine the obvious idiocy of terminating a train at Altrincham is going to cause some political pressure to be put on the Government / NR / TfN to investigate infrastructure improvements to allow more trains - either more trains between Stockport and Manchester, or if that is too difficult, to at least allow trains to terminate at Stockport from the South (which would be a little bit more useful than terminating at Altrincham). Maybe if there were infrastructure improvements around there, that would make it easier to build a business case for Middlewich?

Hi, since 2009 this project has had a BCR of 5:1 - just for Middlewich, when 2tph between Chester and Manchester weren't even available to consider. Now this project includes the 100h business park adjacent to the line near Northwich called Gadbrook Park. When the updated report comes out in a few months I expect the BCR to be higher than 5:1. If the rail industry now can't implement a project with a BCR of 5:1, or higher, just because an additional train planned for Chester - M'cr might stop at Altrincham instead that would be an even more ridiculous state of affairs than leaving a project with a BCR of 5:1 uncompleted for a decade. It's happening - have some optimism!

 

[pemma]

Rail North committee papers have now stated that the second hourly service will be Altrincham to Chester instead of Piccadilly to Greenbank, because of lack of paths between Piccadilly and Stockport. See December 2018 timetable changes (some now confirmed scrapped) - contagion spreads. Stopping patterns not detailed, but I would hope that the Piccadilly service will now become semi-fast. That would still retain a direct service between Mobberley and Chester to keep the MCRUA Chairman happy!

No chance of paths for a direct service from Middlewich to Piccadilly.

Given the chairman and many others in MCRUA bemoan the inconsistent Metrolink running making it difficult to make southbound connections at Altrincham and the lack of interchangeable ticketing, I can't see that going down well.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well, I agree, but the semi-fast is not scheduled to stop there.

Under the original plan, when the second train would have been Piccadilly to Greenbank, only one of the two was planned to stop at Navigation Road. Under the new plan, the second train is to be Altrincham to Chester, so there will be only 1tph through Navigation Road, the same as now.

 

[Altfish]

Under the original plan, when the second train would have been Piccadilly to Greenbank, only one of the two was planned to stop at Navigation Road. Under the new plan, the second train is to be Altrincham to Chester, so there will be only 1tph through Navigation Road, the same as now.

I think my original argument has got lost way back when.
Someone suggested that the Piccadilly to Chester train become the semi-fast - hence my original comment.
Regarding Navigation Road, and I'm not sure if the signalling allows this, but since the Altrincham to Chester service will need to reverse, why not extend it to Navigation Road and reverse there? The down side is extra crossing closures but otherwise it would work.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I think my original argument has got lost way back when.
Someone suggested that the Piccadilly to Chester train become the semi-fast - hence my original comment.
Regarding Navigation Road, and I'm not sure if the signalling allows this, but since the Altrincham to Chester service will need to reverse, why not extend it to Navigation Road and reverse there? The down side is extra crossing closures but otherwise it would work.

I said Navigation Road as a terminus for the Middlewich train but it was shot down.

 

[Altfish]

I said Navigation Road as a terminus for the Middlewich train but it was shot down.

It is not ideal, but if Stockport or Manchester cannot be pathed..

 

[Greybeard33]

I said Navigation Road as a terminus for the Middlewich train but it was shot down.

A reversal at Navigation Road would block the single track too long and conflict with the freight paths. An Altrincham terminator can be parked east of the station so that a freight can pass on the other track in either direction.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A reversal at Navigation Road would block the single track too long and conflict with the freight paths.

Changing ends and getting going again will take no more than 5 minutes. Driver & guard swaps could take place at Crewe or if they suffer from the semi fast issue, ship them to Sandbach

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Changing ends and getting going again will take no more than 5 minutes. Driver & guard swaps could take place at Crewe or if they suffer from the semi fast issue, ship them to Sandbach

Theoretically yes. But, by terminating at Navigation Road on the single-track section, you are basically pre-imposing a requirement on the timetable for a very quick turnaround at Navigation Road, and for driver/guard swaps to happen elsewhere - that might or might not fit in with other restrictions on the timetable. And those 5 minutes (plus 4 minutes to travel to/from Altrincham) might not sound much, but it imposes an additional restriction on when freight trains can/can't run. The people having to plan out the timetables have to work around all sorts of restrictions like this from all over the network, and the more restrictions you impose, the more likely it is that a reasonable and robust timetable becomes impossible.

And the thing then is ... you'd be causing these potential timetable difficulties for what end? There are 100K passengers/year at Navigation Road compared to well over 500K at Altrincham. And I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of that 100K are heading towards Manchester/Stockport and so would see no benefit from additional Navigation Road-Crewe (or Chester) trains. Compared to terminating the hypothetical Crewe trains at Altrincham, the only people you would (slightly) help by extending those trains to Navigation Road are those people whose journeys start/end at Navigation Road itself and who are travelling South of Altrincham. But I'm guessing that's a pretty small number of people and all you're doing is saving them the bother of changing between tram and train at Altrincham. To me, that doesn't look like a big enough benefit to be worth all the timetabling complications you'd cause by terminating on the single track section.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Out of interest, does anyone know for sure what the main issues are preventing more trains running into Piccadilly? Would I be correct in guessing that it's mainly all the conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Piccadilly, and (to a lesser extent) the conflicting moves just South of Stockport where several routes converge? And are there any realistic solutions?

 

[Altfish]

Out of interest, does anyone know for sure what the main issues are preventing more trains running into Piccadilly? Would I be correct in guessing that it's mainly all the conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Piccadilly, and (to a lesser extent) the conflicting moves just South of Stockport where several routes converge? And are there any realistic solutions?

Well, the paths existed when the timetables were first put out. So, I don't know if because of the chaos of the timetables they have allowed a longer gap between trains and the Altrincham/Chester trains are the ones to suffer.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Out of interest, does anyone know for sure what the main issues are preventing more trains running into Piccadilly? Would I be correct in guessing that it's mainly all the conflicting moves as trains try to get to a platform at Piccadilly, and (to a lesser extent) the conflicting moves just South of Stockport where several routes converge? And are there any realistic solutions?

You are correct. Most of those issues come from Airport junction. Realistic solutions looking at the thread about the timetable change are 2 tracking Cheadle - Deansgate junction and fixing the mess that is Airport junction.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Well, the paths existed when the timetables were first put out. So, I don't know if because of the chaos of the timetables they have allowed a longer gap between trains and the Altrincham/Chester trains are the ones to suffer.

They did now? So when can we see the May 18 mess finally go away?

 

[Altfish]

You are correct. Most of those issues come from Airport junction. Realistic solutions looking at the thread about the timetable change are 2 tracking Cheadle - Deansgate junction and fixing the mess that is Airport junction.

And building HS2 and the Airport Western Link

 

[adrock1976]

You are correct. Most of those issues come from Airport junction. Realistic solutions looking at the thread about the timetable change are 2 tracking Cheadle - Deansgate junction and fixing the mess that is Airport junction.

I know that the Great Western Railway were at one time keen on expanding north of Birmingham and Shrewsbury, but did they ever envisage direct trains from Manchester to Heathrow Airport?

Airport Junction was built in the mid 1990s for the diverging route to Heathrow Airport west of Hayes & Harlington (formerly in Middlesex).

On a serious point, the triangular junctions for Manchester Airport are called "Heald Green x", with "x" referring to a compass point.

 

[adrock1976]

I think my original argument has got lost way back when.
Someone suggested that the Piccadilly to Chester train become the semi-fast - hence my original comment.
Regarding Navigation Road, and I'm not sure if the signalling allows this, but since the Altrincham to Chester service will need to reverse, why not extend it to Navigation Road and reverse there? The down side is extra crossing closures but otherwise it would work.

I said Navigation Road as a terminus for the Middlewich train but it was shot down.

It is not ideal, but if Stockport or Manchester cannot be pathed..

A reversal at Navigation Road would block the single track too long and conflict with the freight paths. An Altrincham terminator can be parked east of the station so that a freight can pass on the other track in either direction.

Thinking the suggestions about Navigation Road terminators a bit further, would it be possible to continue to carry on to Hazel Grove and terminate there if Stockport station/Edgeley Junctions cannot be pathed?

 

[142Pilot]

Navigation road is not and unless they build a bit never will be a crew change over point.

Also the level crossing causes a bit of a problem. I'm not entirely certain but the gate would likely have to stay down whilst this change took place.

 

[pemma]

Well, the paths existed when the timetables were first put out. So, I don't know if because of the chaos of the timetables they have allowed a longer gap between trains and the Altrincham/Chester trains are the ones to suffer.

I seem to recall the approved paths from Piccadilly were xx:09 Greenbank and xx:41 Chester and to Piccadilly only the approx xx:30 arrival from Greenbank was approved, with an approx xx:00 arrival from Chester not approved. Before they amended the timetable and resubmitted they were made aware Bolton electrification was delayed so they would be short of DMUs so they ended up using the xx:30 arrival for the Chester service and dropping the request for the other paths, which resulted in the long turnaround at Chester instead of Manchester. Buxton paths got approved first time which is presumably the main reason why that went ahead in May 2018.

 

[pemma]

Navigation road is not and unless they build a bit never will be a crew change over point.

Also the level crossing causes a bit of a problem. I'm not entirely certain but the gate would likely have to stay down whilst this change took place.

The level crossing can be raised while northbound trains and trams are stopped at Navigation Road. Surely if reversing the train caused a problem they could shunt to Deansgate Junction after the crew change and then change ends.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Navigation road is not and unless they build a bit never will be a crew change over point.

Also the level crossing causes a bit of a problem. I'm not entirely certain but the gate would likely have to stay down whilst this change took place.

I never said use Navigation Road as a Crew change over. Cab change yes.

 

[Altfish]

Thinking the suggestions about Navigation Road terminators a bit further, would it be possible to continue to carry on to Hazel Grove and terminate there if Stockport station/Edgeley Junctions cannot be pathed?

Unfortunately the direct link from the Altrincham line to the Hazel Grove line is no more.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Unfortunately the direct link from the Altrincham line to the Hazel Grove line is no more.

It is still there, to Hazel Grove High Level Junction - that's where the freight goes. It would only get you to Chinley though, unless you reverse to Hazel Grove. Little hope now of reinstating the direct LNWR line, I fear ...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can someone clarify the matter for me where Navigation Road heavy rail station was mentioned as a terminal point earlier in the thread where such a matter could have to make allowances for the freight trains that pass through that heavy rail station in terms of timetabling.

 

[Altfish]

A reversal at Navigation Road would block the single track too long and conflict with the freight paths. An Altrincham terminator can be parked east of the station so that a freight can pass on the other track in either direction.

It is an awkward manoeuvre to change lines without going to NVR (IIRC).
Pull forward on Manchester bound track; then wait; reverse back into platform 3; then forward onto Chester bound line; finally back into platform 4.

 

[pemma]

That would still retain a direct service between Mobberley and Chester to keep the MCRUA Chairman happy!

The semi-fast service is not very good for the likes of myself who use Navigation Road to get to Stockport for onward connections.

I'm sure the issue will now be stations retaining a direct service to Manchester instead of Chester. If the second service terminates at Altrincham then the Manchester train will have to stop at Navigation Road as it'll be the only service going beyond Altrincham.

Looking back it seems originally in Manchester direction the plan was to have a semi-fast from Chester to Manchester running about 15-20 minutes behind a Greenbank to Manchester all-stops and close to a half-hourly service in the other direction (with the Greenbank being the stopper.) It was only when they tried to rework it so the Manchester bound services weren't so close together and to change it so the Greenbank became the semi-fast that it started creating pathing issues.