December 2018 timetable changes (some now confirmed scrapped) - contagion spreads

[swt_passenger]

I note the following, sorry if it has alreayd been posted:

0625 York to Glasgow Central starts back from Leeds at 0531
0616 from Leeds to Southampton Central no longer serves Leeds or Wakefield Westgate, but starts from York instead at 0620

Also a minor change at the south end of the XC route, the first nothbound Newcastle service will start back from Southampton Central (SOU) rather than enter service at Winchester, (having run empty from Eastleigh). IIRC the original reason for not starting at SOU was to avoid congestion there at that time of day, and it seems this train will also share the path to SOU with the ECS that forms the existing down short working to Bournemouth...

 

[Starmill]

IIRC the original reason for not starting at SOU was to avoid congestion there at that time of day, and it seems this train will also share the path to SOU with the ECS that forms the existing down short working to Bournemouth...

Clever. That extra Bournemouth train has only begun recently too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Clever. That extra Bournemouth train has only begun recently too.

It’s interesting that here’s a service that (on the face of it) appears to be fairly straightforward, yet it has had so many gradual and relatively minor improvements over a lengthy period. Initially there were a number of stations skipped in either direction, and one down train ran via Laverstock for a couple of years, and only now have they got fairly standard 2 hourly departures from Southampton. Cautious or what...

 

[Starmill]

The total usage of all stations between Middlewood and Buxton is lower than the combined usage of just two stations on the Mid-Cheshire line - Knutsford gets over 500,000 from an hourly service, not many stations in the country achieve such a high level of usage from just 1tph. 2tph to Buxton is a nice to have but in the circumstances 3tph to Hazel Grove and 2tph need to be reviewed as it's not an effective use of the limited paths.

I agree. The focus on Buxton and the Buxton line is very strange. It's clear that from a rolling stock and cost effectiveness perspective extra Macclesfield serivces come out on top of extra services to or via New Mills Newtown so why implement those but leave Bramhall, Poynton and Prestbury.

Nobody in Buxton was promised or was expecting half-hourly service. In fact given there was absolutley no marketing about it, and the fact that the news at the time was totally buried under the wiehght of negative press about the May timetable change, and that Chinley station instead is often used by the locals, I have to question if most people in Buxton even know their train service has doubled.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

I disagree. Buxton needs the extra services.

Disley, New Mills Newtown and Whaley Bridge have annual figures well above 100k, which easily justifies 2tph.

But Congleton's 340k doesn't?
under half the service and NO peak services.
Need I mention Sundays...

 

[Esker-pades]

But Congleton's 340k doesn't?
under half the service and NO peak services.
Need I mention Sundays...

Again, I have never said that other stations do not justify an increase in service. Just that Buxton does.

 

[splashoutradio]

Following some processing of national public timetable data, I've put together some of the new timetables - Covering Wales and a large portion of Northern England - as PDF's. As it's still early days, these are subject to change, so take them with varying quantities of salt. Timetables available at www.railwaydata.co.uk/timetables

Having had a very brief scan through the tables, the only major change that I've noticed, is the introduction of a second unit on the Bidston - Wrexham line on a Sunday (Table 158.) There's some interesting moves scheduled from Liverpool to Chester in table 98, although there is a very good chance that these will disappear before the timetable starts in December.

 

[Starmill]

Again, I have never said that other stations do not justify an increase in service. Just that Buxton does.

Buxton doesn't even have a franchise commitment for 2tph. Knutsford and Northwich do, for December 2017. Surely you can understand why people see this as bizarre.

 

[pemma]

There's some interesting moves scheduled from Liverpool to Chester in table 98, although there is a very good chance that these will disappear before the timetable starts in December.

Looks like they were the paths secured by ATW for the next Wales & Borders franchise to run the Chester-Runcorn-Liverpool services but they will now not be used due to no units being available to run the service until May 2019.

 

[pemma]

Again, I have never said that other stations do not justify an increase in service. Just that Buxton does.

Surely you appreciate there isn't an unlimited supply of paths and rolling stock and that for the additional Buxton service to be justifiable it needs to have a better case for additional services than other lines. I'm sure LNR can justify an improved Milton Keynes to London local service but if they have to take paths which long distance services should be using would it be a good idea?

 

[Esker-pades]

Buxton doesn't even have a franchise commitment for 2tph. Knutsford and Northwich do, for December 2017. Surely you can understand why people see this as bizarre.

I do understand, but not the "Buxton can't have 2tph because other places don't" argument.

 

[Esker-pades]

Surely you appreciate there isn't an unlimited supply paths and rolling stock and that for the additional Buxton service to be justifiable it needs to have a better case for additional services than other lines. I'm sure LNR can justify an improved Milton Keynes to London local service but if they have to take paths which long distance services should be using would it be a good idea?

Yes.

It has been expained why there are 3tph to Hazel Grove (Blackpool EMU service). Northern doesn't have to DMUs to run such a service under the wires for so long. Perhaps the 769s could be a solution? (Cue a barrage of comments about how they're not going to happen/are awful etc. - I know)

But Congleton's 340k doesn't?
under half the service and NO peak services.
Need I mention Sundays...

Manchester to Stockport paths won't necessarily extend to Congleton. Not that Congleton doesn't need additional services, but Buxton paths most likely don't exist beyond Stockport.

 

[pemma]

It has been expained why there are 3tph to Hazel Grove (Blackpool EMU service). Northern doesn't have to DMUs to run such a service under the wires for so long. Perhaps the 769s could be a solution? (Cue a barrage of comments about how they're not going to happen/are awful etc. - I know)

The current service is Manchester to Buxton x 2 and Manchester to Hazel Grove x 1. There are no Hazel Grove to Blackpool services and if they did run they wouldn't be EMU services due to the wires through Bolton not being live yet. The Hazel Grove only service is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog, it's a stupid place to terminate a service when paths are limited and the trains only terminate there because the wires end there.

The current plan for May 2019 is Hazel Grove to Blackpool instead of Macclesfield to Blackpool (as was the plan a few months ago.) However, that could still change as it's not set in stone.

As you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge as to the current situation, presumably you have no recent experience of travelling in the 'South Manchester' area and you have not seen what the loadings are like on Buxton services but are commenting based on LENNON data only.

Manchester to Stockport paths won't necessarily extend to Congleton. Not that Congleton doesn't need additional services, but Buxton paths most likely don't exist beyond Stockport.

The constraints seem to be on approach to Piccadilly rather than at Stockport or further down the WCML.

 

[Greybeard33]

Buxton doesn't even have a franchise commitment for 2tph. Knutsford and Northwich do, for December 2017. Surely you can understand why people see this as bizarre.

After the May 2018 timetable fiasco, I do not find it bizarre, or even surprising, that TfN, Network Rail and Northern are now offering, for May 2019, only timetable enhancements that can be reliably delivered with the existing infrastructure. It appears that some of the enhancements specified in the Northern and TPE TSRs were based on preliminary Northern Hub timetable modelling that has turned out to be flawed and over-optimistic.

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to New Mills Newtown, but only 1tph to Buxton. But there is no crossover to enable a reversal at New Mills Newtown. Presumably Northern has found that it can extend the second train to Buxton at minimal additional cost and thereby gain additional revenue.

The franchise agreement specified 4tph from Manchester to Hazel Grove. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a path for the fourth service without unaccceptable performance risk. So TfN and Northern have agreed that it the third path should be used for the second New Mills Newtown/Buxton service rather than a second Hazel Grove terminator.

The franchise agreement specified 4tph from Manchester to Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, of which 16 per day must come from Bolton. Providing a cross-city service between Blackpool North and Hazel Grove, as in the pre-May 2018 timetable, will enable these commitments to be fulfilled.

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to Macclesfield. But they would have to be squeezed in between the 2tph VTWC and 2tph XC expresses on the two track main line, and across the flat junction at Cheadle Hulme. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a path for the second train without unacceptable performance risk.

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to Altrincham, Hale, Knutsford, Northwich and Greenbank, but only 1tph to Chester and the other intermediate stations. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a second path between Stockport and Altrincham, over the two single line sections, without unacceptable performance risk. So TfN and Northern have agreed that the second train should instead run from Altrincham to Chester, with the frequent Metrolink service providing connections from Manchester to Altrincham.

 

[pemma]

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to New Mills Newtown, but only 1tph to Buxton. But there is no crossover to enable a reversal at New Mills Newtown. Presumably Northern has found that it can extend the second train to Buxton at minimal additional cost and thereby gain additional revenue.

The franchise agreement specified 4tph from Manchester to Hazel Grove. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a path for the fourth service without unaccceptable performance risk. So TfN and Northern have agreed that it the third path should be used for the second New Mills Newtown/Buxton service rather than a second Hazel Grove terminator.

It's worth remembering the ITT specified 3tph to Hazel Grove, 2tph to New Mills Newtown and 1tph to Buxton. The 4th Hazel Grove was something Arriva included in their bid just so there was a consistent service from both Hazel Grove and New Mills Newtown. Surely adding the services over and above what the ITT required (which also includes the Liverpool extension of a Calder Valley service) should be low priority compared to the ones the ITT did require, if they don't all prove possible to implement.

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to Altrincham, Hale, Knutsford, Northwich and Greenbank, but only 1tph to Chester and the other intermediate stations. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a second path between Stockport and Altrincham, over the two single line sections, without unacceptable performance risk. So TfN and Northern have agreed that the second train should instead run from Altrincham to Chester, with the frequent Metrolink service providing connections from Manchester to Altrincham.

Which overlooks the fact there's more demand for Stockport from Mid-Cheshire stations than there is from Chester. It also overlooks that from Cheshire stations the choice is to buy a ticket to Manchester via Stockport or a more expensive Manchester via Metrolink, with it not being possible to go one way via Metrolink and the other way via Stockport.

Again the ITT specified an additional service from Northwich and there wasn't a requirement for Hale to be a calling point on the additional services. However, MCRUA convinced Arriva that the level of usage at Greenbank and Hale is higher than the LENNON data suggests, plus a train from Manchester not going to Chester would have likely gone to Greenbank to shunt around anyway.

 

[Starmill]

After the May 2018 timetable fiasco, I do not find it bizarre, or even surprising, that TfN, Network Rail and Northern are now offering, for May 2019, only timetable enhancements that can be reliably delivered with the existing infrastructure.

I completely agree. So it is a question of priorities. For reasons of rolling stock, of revenue, of passenger numbers, of operating cost, of pretty much everything, additional Macclesfield services are superior to additional Buxton services.

 

[Starmill]

The franchise agreement specified 2tph from Manchester to Altrincham, Hale, Knutsford, Northwich and Greenbank, but only 1tph to Chester and the other intermediate stations. Presumably Network Rail has now determined that it cannot offer a second path between Stockport and Altrincham, over the two single line sections, without unacceptable performance risk. So TfN and Northern have agreed that the second train should instead run from Altrincham to Chester, with the frequent Metrolink service providing connections from Manchester to Altrincham.

Even this makes zero sense. It has been possible for 10 years or more to run additional Altrincham - Northwich or beyond services. You could have done it with as little as a single extra unit. There were, we were told, good solid reasons not to do this. But apparently now after all of this time of saying there will be no more services except through trains to Manchester, they are going to do this? But not until May 2019. Even though it could start almost as soon as one extra unit is found.

 

[pemma]

Even this makes zero sense. It has been possible for 10 years or more to run additional Altrincham - Northwich or beyond services. You could have done it with as little as a single extra unit. There were, we were told, good solid reasons not to do this. But apparently now after all of this time of saying there will be no more services except through trains to Manchester, they are going to do this? But not until May 2019. Even though it could start almost as soon as one extra unit is found.

The option of a single unit running a Northwich to Altrincham shuttle was put forward in 2007. Northern Rail objected to the proposal as they felt they'd lose revenue to Metrolink.

Another proposal put forward in 2007 was for Mid-Cheshire services to be terminated at Stockport with Northwich to Stockport to get 2tph, which was also rejected on the basis that passengers would be put off by being forced to change. However, the rejected proposal was partly implemented due to Virgin VHF not working without them robbing some of Northern's paths.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's worth remembering the ITT specified 3tph to Hazel Grove, 2tph to New Mills Newtown and 1tph to Buxton. The 4th Hazel Grove was something Arriva included in their bid just so there was a consistent service from both Hazel Grove and New Mills Newtown. Surely adding the services over and above what the ITT required (which also includes the Liverpool extension of a Calder Valley service) should be low priority compared to the ones the ITT did require, if they don't all prove possible to implement.



Which overlooks the fact there's more demand for Stockport from Mid-Cheshire stations than there is from Chester. It also overlooks that from Cheshire stations the choice is to buy a ticket to Manchester via Stockport or a more expensive Manchester via Metrolink, with it not being possible to go one way via Metrolink and the other way via Stockport.

Again the ITT specified an additional service from Northwich and there wasn't a requirement for Hale to be a calling point on the additional services. However, MCRUA convinced Arriva that the level of usage at Greenbank and Hale is higher than the LENNON data suggests, plus a train from Manchester not going to Chester would have likely gone to Greenbank to shunt around anyway.

IMO this Altrincham to Chester service strengthens the case for Metrolink to be integrated into the ATOC fares and ticketing system, like Merseyrail.

There will be only 3tph to Hazel Grove from May 2019, as now, so the ITT requirements for the Buxton line are only exceeded in respect of the extension of the New Mills Newtown service to Buxton.

 

[Greybeard33]

I completely agree. So it is a question of priorities. For reasons of rolling stock, of revenue, of passenger numbers, of operating cost, of pretty much everything, additional Macclesfield services are superior to additional Buxton services.

You are assuming that, if the second Buxton service were canned, it would be possible to use the path for a second Macclesfield service. Do you have timetable planning analysis to support this? A Macclesfield service needs a path all the way from Piccadilly to Macclesfield, not just to Edgeley Jn. At Cheadle Hulme, the northbound service would have to cross the paths of southbound services to the Wilmslow line.

 

[pemma]

IMO this Altrincham to Chester service strengthens the case for Metrolink to be integrated into the ATOC fares and ticketing system, like Merseyrail.

There will be only 3tph to Hazel Grove from May 2019, as now, so the ITT requirements for the Buxton line are only exceeded in respect of the extension of the New Mills Newtown service to Buxton.

Which is why I suggested South TPE and EMT services should be 6 carriages and call at Hazel Grove.

 

[Starmill]

You are assuming that, if the second Buxton service were canned, it would be possible to use the path for a second Macclesfield service. Do you have timetable planning analysis to support this? A Macclesfield service needs a path all the way from Piccadilly to Macclesfield, not just to Edgeley Jn. At Cheadle Hulme, the northbound service would have to cross the paths of southbound services to the Wilmslow line.

In March this year a timetable was uploaded showing this, so I definitely don't buy the argument that it isn't possible to have 2tph stopping, 2tph VT and 2tph XC. The compromise is on Adlington calls, which is sensible.

 

[Greybeard33]

Even this makes zero sense. It has been possible for 10 years or more to run additional Altrincham - Northwich or beyond services. You could have done it with as little as a single extra unit. There were, we were told, good solid reasons not to do this. But apparently now after all of this time of saying there will be no more services except through trains to Manchester, they are going to do this? But not until May 2019. Even though it could start almost as soon as one extra unit is found.

Not until May 2019 because of the edict of no major Northern timetable changes until then.

Given the approx 50 minute layover of the current Northern service at Chester, I imagine the extra Altrincham service will interwork with it at Chester, so that only one additional unit and crew is required.

 

[Starmill]

IMO this Altrincham to Chester service strengthens the case for Metrolink to be integrated into the ATOC fares and ticketing system, like Merseyrail

I agree strongly but this would require a significant subsidy, at least in the initial years, to convince Metrolink to accept railcard discounted tickets, relevant rangers and Rovers, staff passes and so on and so forth. Perhaps this is something Andy Burnham could argue for? But no. He is more interested in the negative effect of roadworks.

It's absolutely crazy that Metrolink has been so abandoned in this way from a national system. Even without full integration, an agreement for more tickets to be inter-available and an universal through fares would help.

 

[Starmill]

Not until May 2019 because of the edict of no major Northern timetable changes until then.

This is also wrong. There will be a significant increase in Northern service between Leeds and York, with stopping patterns revised and destinations of both hourly services changed this December. That's what I'd call a significant change. Far more significant than a one train, self-contained shuttle that doesn't interact with any other services.

 

[Greybeard33]

In March this year a timetable was uploaded showing this, so I definitely don't buy the argument that it isn't possible to have 2tph stopping, 2tph VT and 2tph XC. The compromise is on Adlington calls, which is sensible.

Those Macclesfield paths in the original May 2018 timetable, which was never finalised, were in addition to the Buxton paths, not in place of them, were they not?

I imagine there has now been a re-evaluation with strict adherence to the Network Rail planning rules, in view of the chaos that occurred in March.

 

[Starmill]

Those Macclesfield paths in the original May 2018 timetable, which was never finalised, were in addition to the Buxton paths, not in place of them, were they not?

I imagine there has now been a re-evaluation with strict adherence to the Network Rail planning rules, in view of the chaos that occurred in March.

Given that tickets were issued against that timetable and it was uploaded before the planning window was contracted, I very much doubt that there is any question of rules having not been adhered to. The re-evaluation that took place was as a result of Bolton line electrification being incomplete, not because of South Manchester track capacity issues.

In any case the idea that Transport for the North should roll over and accept this loss is clear nonsense. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money has been spend on electrification, signalling upgrades and the Ordsall Chord. A key output of this was South Manchester commuter services. Indeed, this is a more significant outcome than North TransPennine changes, given that the overall quantum of North TransPennine trains into Manchester is unchanged.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Adherence to planning rules simply creates a compliant timetable. It is not necessarily a robust timetable. The Ordsall Chord / Oxford Road performance problems have been entirely due to lack of robustness. Similar to Thameslink, the railway has discovered the limitations of the ‘compliance is everything’ mindset. Someone now needs to come up with a means of ensuring that robustness is built in from day one. This inevitably requires in depth knowledge of key localities and a more ‘common sense’ approach (in addition to planning rules compliance.)

 

[Kite159]

This is also wrong. There will be a significant increase in Northern service between Leeds and York, with stopping patterns revised and destinations of both hourly services changed this December. That's what I'd call a significant change. Far more significant than a one train, self-contained shuttle that doesn't interact with any other services.

At least it should hopefully be easier to visit platform 14 at Leeds with the new Leeds - York shuttle, unless they are go into P7.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Interesting - which website can I find this information on?

Disappointing to see that on my return trip from Leeds to Oxford in the early morning, during the timetable, that the 06:16 direct is starting at York and not calling at Leeds. However, there's a choice of 2 HST's I can enjoy instead on route to the Oxford train - the 06:11 Plymouth train or the East Midlands Trains London service at 06:34.

This is assuming the 06:11 and 06:34 exist by the end of April 2019 - ages away I know !