Could Llandudno-Chester Be Half-Hourly, with more Stops?

[DynamicSpirit]

What are the possibilities for making the Llandudno-Manchester service half-hourly, at least between Llandudno and Chester? (I realise there would be likely capacity problems adding more trains heading into Manchester). It's currently hourly, except with a 3-hour gap leaving Llandudno between 11:42 and 14:41 (travel between those times requires changing at Llandudno Junction). Faster trains from Bangor give an effective half-hourly service to some, but not all, stations between Chester and Llandudno Junction.

I was on that service during the day Saturday and yesterday and the trains were full-to-standing in both directions, and I gather from talking to another passenger that that is a common occurrence on that route. It serves quite a few decent-sized towns and feels like it deserves a more frequent service.

Related to that, the line passes through quite a few other built-up areas that currently lack stations. I would have thought building a couple more stations would also be useful. The most obvious ones would seem to be Connah's Quay, Whelston (for Holywell), Towyn/Kinmel Bay, Llandullas and Old Colwyn.

Would a half-hourly service that also serves those locations make more sense? That might also allow speeding up the Bangor trains by having them omit more stops.

 

[Dr Day]

AIUI, the TfW extra train on North Wales coast announced with the new 'franchise' is still planned, with a swapping of destinations so that the Bangor goes to Manchester and the Llandudno to Liverpool. Things were being held up by an improvement needed to a level crossing, triggered by the extra service. Things may also be being held up by a lack of funding or units. Maybe @Krokodil can advise?

 

[edwin_m]

Official TfW site: https://tfw.wales/projects/metro/north-wales-metro

• We’re working on a new hourly service between Liverpool and Llandudno and extending the current Llandudno to Manchester Airport service to include Bangor.
• We want to deliver a new service every two hours between Liverpool and Cardiff, with an hourly service between Shrewsbury and Liverpool.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Official TfW site: https://tfw.wales/projects/metro/north-wales-metro

That's an improvement, but would imply that Llandudno continues to only get 1tph, since it seems to indicate that the existing service would get diverted to Bangor instead. (Which to be fair is good for Bangor)

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Isn't their some issue with the amount of user worked crossings towards holywell / mostyn direction which limits the amount of trains per hour??

 

[Topological]

There also seems to be a major shortage of 197s at the moment.

Like much with TfW, the idea is nice enough but the implementation is all too much.

Dont forget, TfW still pay leasing charges on a majority of the 175s and they sit doing nothing. (Information about the 175s is from the dedicated 175 speculation thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-175-future-speculation.218095/page-69)

That is almost certainly why only 6 sets have been off-leased so far. The rest are not yet in a satisfactory condition for Angel to accept them back. It will be costing TfW a fair amount in lease payments as we're almost 6 months on from the fleet finishing in service.

 

[Krokodil]

Network Rail are blocking extra services through Towyn and Deganwy due to concerns about the foot crossings. Maybe the Welsh Government will stump up for a footbridge - Network Rail aren't prepared to pay and those particular foot crossings undeniably present a risk. Not only are they blocking extra services but they are blocking the reinstatement of the shuttles between Junction and Llandudno, which used to offer a half hourly service for the town (hourly to/from Manchester and hourly shuttles to connect with Up and Down Holyhead trains).

If there are any station reopenings it'll be Holywell Junction. Nothing else really has a case, though the fact that the Amwlch line is still intact (save for a bashed bridge, a severed junction and a considerable number of rotten sleepers) means that it will continue to attract reopening calls.

As for overcrowding - you'd think that they'd have learned the lessons from Crosscountry regarding running short trains at frequent intervals. Sometimes Control manage to double up sets but it doesn't happen often enough. Never mind "full and standing", reports of "30 passengers left behind" are ten-a-penny on Saturdays and in the summer.

 

[The Planner]

If there are any station reopenings it'll be Holywell Junction. Nothing else really has a case, though the fact that the Amwlch line is still intact (save for a bashed bridge, a severed junction and a considerable number of rotten sleepers) means that it will continue to attract reopening calls.

I would hardly call Amwlch intact, it would need a complete formation rebuild.

 

[Meerkat]

I would hardly call Amwlch intact, it would need a complete formation rebuild.

If it still looks clear on a map the reopening clamour will continue!
A closed railway! It’s a solution, now to find a problem!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Network Rail are blocking extra services through Towyn and Deganwy due to concerns about the foot crossings. Maybe the Welsh Government will stump up for a footbridge - Network Rail aren't prepared to pay and those particular foot crossings undeniably present a risk. Not only are they blocking extra services but they are blocking the reinstatement of the shuttles between Junction and Llandudno, which used to offer a half hourly service for the town (hourly to/from Manchester and hourly shuttles to connect with Up and Down Holyhead trains).

Interesting. Which foot crossings are those? I just had a look on Google maps and couldn't see any. And the Towyn area seems to already have numerous footbridges over the tracks. Doesn't reflect well on the railway/the Welsh Government/whoever finances it if a much needed improvement that would solve a problem of people being regularly unable to board trains along a 40-mile stretch of line can't be done for want of the cost of two footbridges.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting. Which foot crossings are those? I just had a look on Google maps and couldn't see any. And the Towyn area seems to already have numerous footbridges over the tracks. Doesn't reflect well on the railway/the Welsh Government/whoever finances it if a much needed improvement that would solve a problem of people being regularly unable to board trains along a 40-mile stretch of line can't be done for want of the cost of two footbridges.

Longer trains would solve the "regularly unable to board" issue - frequency if anything may make it worse by increasing attractiveness.

 

[Jack Hay]

Interesting. Which foot crossings are those? I just had a look on Google maps and couldn't see any. And the Towyn area seems to already have numerous footbridges over the tracks. Doesn't reflect well on the railway/the Welsh Government/whoever finances it if a much needed improvement that would solve a problem of people being regularly unable to board trains along a 40-mile stretch of line can't be done for want of the cost of two footbridges.

This is a common problem. Network Rail announce a new standard for something, then say their infrastructure doesn't meet it, then say they haven't got the money to meet their new standard and someone else must pay, despite it being NR's decision to launch the new standard! In the meantime, improvements that would benefit passengers, or produce more revenue for train operators, or both, are blocked, but NR doesn't care about that. On the Mid Cheshire line there was an extra twist to the foot crossings standard. NR announced that they had not got the technology to meet their new standard at one crossing so the line could not meet the new standard even if somebody else paid, so the improved train service was blocked forever or until new technology might be developed. Network Rail's perfectionist mindest is the root cause of many of the industry's problems. They need a 'good enough' or 'design for affordability' mindset like successful businesses have. If they had any competition they'd be dead in the water.

 

[HSTEd]

Network Rail's perfectionist mindest is the root cause of many of the industry's problems. They need a 'good enough' or 'design for affordability' mindset like successful businesses have. If they had any competition they'd be dead in the water.

It's a fairly standard mindset in industries subjected to British style "safety case" regulation.

Perfectionism is a perfectly rational strategy in an environment controlled by the ORR or similar regulators (like the ONR).

 

[stevieinselby]

That's an improvement, but would imply that Llandudno continues to only get 1tph, since it seems to indicate that the existing service would get diverted to Bangor instead. (Which to be fair is good for Bangor)

The issue is that you can't just look at Llandudno services in isolation. The line between Llandudno Junction and Chester is used by trains to Llandudno and to Bangor/Holyhead, and stations west of LLJ deserve a regular stopping service as well. So the question becomes does Llandudno specifically need more than an hourly service, or is it the coast line in general? If there's a half-hourly service between Chester, Shotton, Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Abergele, Colwyn Bay and Llandudno Junction, connecting Liverpool/Manchester with Llandudno/(Holyhead or Bangor) in some combination, plus fast trains from Holyhead to London, Birmingham and Cardiff, would that be enough? If Llandudno itself needs a better service but the coast route as a whole doesn't then would it be better solved with more shuttle services running between Llandudno and Junction for connections onto the fast services?

 

[cle]

Liverpool-Llandudno feels right, now that Halton is done - those places have tight connections between them and it's going to be very popular.

Bangor has the students, so a little more spread in terms of demand. London and Manchester likely to cover it (tbh, 2tph from Crewe covers a lot of permutations).

But a half hourly 'metro' service on that core stretch from Junction to Chester makes sense for local users, even if it is just clockface timetabling of other services, vs dedicated ones. London-Holyheads should be Chester - Junction - Bangor - Holyhead.

 

[Krokodil]

I would hardly call Amwlch intact, it would need a complete formation rebuild.

The route is intact (as in all still in railway ownership with no development). Unlike routes such as Caernarfon which would have a much stronger case were it not for the Felinheli Bypass. I did mention the condition of the track.

Interesting. Which foot crossings are those? I just had a look on Google maps and couldn't see any.

One is called Tŷ Gwyn and is adjacent to the caravan site of the same name. The other is close by but I forget the name.

Doesn't reflect well on the railway/the Welsh Government/whoever finances it if a much needed improvement that would solve a problem of people being regularly unable to board trains along a 40-mile stretch of line can't be done for want of the cost of two footbridges.

You don't need a footbridge to solve the overcrowding, you need longer trains.

If Llandudno itself needs a better service but the coast route as a whole doesn't then would it be better solved with more shuttle services running between Llandudno and Junction for connections onto the fast services?

Reinstating the pre-pandemic service and making sure that the connections work would be a start. That way you have an hourly service to Chester and an hourly shuttle to connect with Holyhead-Chester services in both directions. No random trains to Crewe though, the service pattern should be standardised.

 

[86247]

Just looked on Google maps Iooks like the other foot crossing is by harts caravan park, at the top of a road called tennis court road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool-Llandudno feels right, now that Halton is done - those places have tight connections between them and it's going to be very popular.

Yes, I can see a Liverpool-North Wales service being particularly popular in school holidays and weekends. You can of course very easily change at Chester, but it's complexity most car owning families don't want. "You can get a train from Liverpool to Llandudno" might mean a taxi to Lime St then the train.

 

[Jack Hay]

It's a fairly standard mindset in industries subjected to British style "safety case" regulation.

Perfectionism is a perfectly rational strategy in an environment controlled by the ORR or similar regulators (like the ONR).

That's an interesting way to look at it. I shall give that some more thought!

 

[Fermiboson]

It's a fairly standard mindset in industries subjected to British style "safety case" regulation.

Perfectionism is a perfectly rational strategy in an environment controlled by the ORR or similar regulators (like the ONR).

On the other hand, you have to statistically accept a given number of additional Elsehams per year/decade if you, to take this case as an example, decide to up the frequency without removing the user operated crossings. The risk does exist, and does increase with intensified service. So rephrased, the question becomes: should we kill one or two pedestrians maybe every decade/8 years in order to solve a given amount of overcrowding problems on a certain line? The utilitarian would suggest so, but I imagine not a lot of forum members would be comfortable answering yes.

It’s not perfectionism so much as it is the trolley problem.

 

[Tramfan]

Never mind "full and standing", reports of "30 passengers left behind" are ten-a-penny on Saturdays and in the summer.

Indeed when I was there a couple of years ago on a summer Saturday there were people being left behind at places like Rhyl and Prestatyn, and the overcrowding caused extended dwells at the stations meaning we lost about 10 mins between Llandudno Junction and Chester

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Just looked on Google maps Iooks like the other foot crossing is by harts caravan park, at the top of a road called tennis court road.

This one? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2963748,-3.5773916,3a,75y,254.06h,65.38t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNqBNoVNMsJQS9_PgHDyNr0-HoNEMi2Ld9gNGfx!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNqBNoVNMsJQS9_PgHDyNr0-HoNEMi2Ld9gNGfx=w203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya66.58553-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040?entry=ttu That appears to be a footbridge, so I can't see how that would cause any issues

One is called Tŷ Gwyn and is adjacent to the caravan site of the same name. The other is close by but I forget the name.

Thanks, found them - the two crossings here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tŷ+Gwyn+Caravan+Park/@53.2995938,-3.5665761,346m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!3m8!1s0x486527ac3802891d:0x7194551d85bf3d41!5m2!4m1!1i2!8m2!3d53.298426!4d-3.562316!16s/g/1tfkkldq?entry=ttu. I can see why you wouldn't want those on a railway with trains passing at high speed. But they are just 270m apart so you wouldn't even need to build two bridges to replace them: One footbridge plus an access path alongside the South side of the railway should suffice without causing that much inconvenience to pedestrians.

 

[Krokodil]

So rephrased, the question becomes: should we kill one or two pedestrians maybe every decade/8 years

It's worth pointing out that the fatality rate is worse than two a decade. The installation of miniature warning lights has helped though.

 

[urbophile]

One is called Tŷ Gwyn and is adjacent to the caravan site of the same name. The other is close by but I forget the name.

If it's close by could they not both be closed and one footbridge built midway between them?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One of the ironies for safety about those crossings has to be that they are only about half a mile from Abergele and Pensarn station, so the trains shouldn't be going too fast there... except that that is the only station between Flint and Llandudno Junction that the fast trains don't stop at!

 

[HSTEd]

On the other hand, you have to statistically accept a given number of additional Elsehams per year/decade if you, to take this case as an example, decide to up the frequency without removing the user operated crossings. The risk does exist, and does increase with intensified service. So rephrased, the question becomes: should we kill one or two pedestrians maybe every decade/8 years in order to solve a given amount of overcrowding problems on a certain line? The utilitarian would suggest so, but I imagine not a lot of forum members would be comfortable answering yes.

It’s not perfectionism so much as it is the trolley problem.

The decision here is not quite that simple though. Because using a 1:1 Cost Benefit is not likely to be acceptable to the safety case regulator, they would expect the operator to take all measures that have a BCR above a value well below 1 (in the nuclear industry this value could be as low as 0.1 in some cases). They will also be expected to present extensive documentation that all plausible methods to mitigate risk have been examined.,

If they have not, then they are not considered to have mitigated the risk So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable and the ORR/ONR/whoever will say no.

 

[Fermiboson]

The decision here is not quite that simple though. Because using a 1:1 Cost Benefit is not likely to be acceptable to the safety case regulator, they would expect the operator to take all measures that have a BCR above a value well below 1 (in the nuclear industry this value could be as low as 0.1 in some cases). They will also be expected to present extensive documentation that all plausible methods to mitigate risk have been examined.,

If they have not, then they are not considered to have mitigated the risk So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable and the ORR/ONR/whoever will say no.

Yes, that is what I mean by saying that the utilitarian approach will not be accepted by most people.

 

[zwk500]

The decision here is not quite that simple though. Because using a 1:1 Cost Benefit is not likely to be acceptable to the safety case regulator, they would expect the operator to take all measures that have a BCR above a value well below 1 (in the nuclear industry this value could be as low as 0.1 in some cases). They will also be expected to present extensive documentation that all plausible methods to mitigate risk have been examined.,

If they have not, then they are not considered to have mitigated the risk So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable and the ORR/ONR/whoever will say no.

It's not just industry regulation but legal responsibilities as well. People who could be put on trial for offences such as manslaughter tend to be very cautious before signing off on something with known risks.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

This one? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2963748,-3.5773916,3a,75y,254.06h,65.38t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNqBNoVNMsJQS9_PgHDyNr0-HoNEMi2Ld9gNGfx!2e10!3e11!6shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipNqBNoVNMsJQS9_PgHDyNr0-HoNEMi2Ld9gNGfx=w203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya66.58553-ro-0-fo100!7i6080!8i3040?entry=ttu That appears to be a footbridge, so I can't see how that would cause any issues



Thanks, found them - the two crossings here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tŷ+Gwyn+Caravan+Park/@53.2995938,-3.5665761,346m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!3m8!1s0x486527ac3802891d:0x7194551d85bf3d41!5m2!4m1!1i2!8m2!3d53.298426!4d-3.562316!16s/g/1tfkkldq?entry=ttu. I can see why you wouldn't want those on a railway with trains passing at high speed. But they are just 270m apart so you wouldn't even need to build two bridges to replace them: One footbridge plus an access path alongside the South side of the railway should suffice without causing that much inconvenience to pedestrians.

There seems to be a few other crossings in close proximity to the foot crossings that have footbridges, I wonder who paid for them and why they were approved but the two foot crossings decided against? Did the caravan sites stump up some cash I wonder?

 

[Meerkat]

A crossing next to a caravan park means kids using them on their own, and mucking about.
So your tragedies look even worse in the media, and even more likely to result in some scary times for anyone who signed it off as safe.