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

[sufian123]

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 !

0616 Leeds to Southampton exist only on Saturdays now. Rest are wait and see game.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.)

Indeed, I think it has now become clear that the TPE/Northern May 2018 changes would have been far from robust even if the Bolton electrification had been delivered on time. The late replanning caused by the electrification delay has been a convenient excuse for the industry to blame for the chaos, but on most lines the current timetable is actually very similar to that originally planned. Even with the wires available, TPE would still have had 10 minute turnround times at Manchester Airport and inadequate margins between the TP North fasts and semi-fasts. There would still have been congestion through the Oxford Road corridor. On the Stockport line, Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel would still have had only 3tph southbound, with gaps of 40 minutes, versus the specified 4tph service. And Network Rail would not have been able to offer robust paths for 2tph to Altrincham and the Mid-Cheshire line.

The May 2019 proposals appear to be an attempt to row back on the enhancements in order to improve robustness. But this means that the investment in the Hub, in particular the Ordsall Chord, will not deliver all the benefits on which the business case was based.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

In terms of turnaround times, the recommended rule of thumb is 10 mins for every hour of inbound journey. So a Newcastle-Manchester Airport service would be looking at about 25-30 mins. If they’re planning 10 mins this suggests the mandatory planning rules for Manchester Airport are inadequate (as is the number of terminal platforms.)

 

[Greybeard33]

In terms of turnaround times, the recommended rule of thumb is 10 mins for every hour of inbound journey. So a Newcastle-Manchester Airport service would be looking at about 25-30 mins. If they’re planning 10 mins this suggests the mandatory planning rules for Manchester Airport are inadequate (as is the number of terminal platforms.)

10 minute turnrounds are what TPE has actually had at the Airport since May 2018, for the Newcastle and Middlesbrough diagrams.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

Re-reading the explanation in the TfN Train Service Planning paper:

The [May 2019] fixes to the May 18 timetable that are being developed... in conjunction with Network Rail’s project team tasked with improving performance... include:
An hourly Blackpool – Hazel Grove service (incorporating the Piccadilly – Hazel Grove) rather than Blackpool – Macclesfield. The likely consequence is that Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton and Macclesfield will not get the second Macclesfield train per hour that the TSR specifies. However, Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel should get their TSR quantum, and the service should operate more reliably than running to Macclesfield.

I interpret this as saying that there are two reasons why the previously-planned Blackpool - Macclesfield service will be diverted to Hazel Grove:

1. It enables a Slow line routing from Slade Lane to Stockport, calling at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, in order that those two stations get the 4tph that was specified in the TSR and which they have always had until 1tph was axed in May 2018. These calls would not have been possible with the Macclesfield destination, because the train would then have been caught by the following express before it reached Macclesfield. Users of Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel have, no doubt, benefited from the support of TfGM as an influential stakeholder in TfN.
2. There is less risk that a late running service from Blackpool will delay southbound VTWC and/or XC expresses. Even before the May 2018 timetable change, the punctuality performance of the previous Blackpool to Hazel Grove service was poor, because of delays through the Castlefield corridor. Since the Blackpool via Bolton service was temporarily cut back to Piccadilly in May, the increased congestion in the corridor has worsened its performance.

 

[IanXC]

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.

What RDG had to say was:

The majority of operators will introduce a new December timetable. Others will continue with their May timetable, which will still require additional work to be done. Where this is the case, minor adjustments and small locally-based changes that have limited wider impact may be made if possible

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2018/469774201-2018-07-09.html

As far as I can see the timetable uploaded for December 18 matches the original May 18 timetable and doesn't require retiming or amendment to other operators services. What it does do tho, is aid reliability by reducing the number of through services using Leeds station, and reducing the opportunities for late running from the Calder Valley to reach the ECML and vice versa.

 

[Silverdale]

I am unsure if this is the right place to ask, but do the services shown on Realtime Trains for dates after the December change correspond to ones which are confirmed?

Reason for asking is that Virgin have an announcement on their site that VT services on 27th Dec will not start running until 09:30, but RTT lists VT services for 27th December which are shown as belonging to the regular post-Dec 2018 timetable and not a special or Sunday service.

Is it just that a special VT timetable for 27th Dec has not been confirmed yet and will override the normal timetable when it is?

 

[sufian123]

I am unsure if this is the right place to ask, but do the services shown on Realtime Trains for dates after the December change correspond to ones which are confirmed?

Reason for asking is that Virgin have an announcement on their site that VT services on 27th Dec will not start running until 09:30, but RTT lists VT services for 27th December which are shown as belonging to the regular post-Dec 2018 timetable and not a special or Sunday service.

Is it just that a special VT timetable for 27th Dec has not been confirmed yet and will override the normal timetable when it is?

This will reflect as soon as NR announces the engineering works and the special timetable will be implemented. This is usually we should know in November early December. Trains shown on RTT running on Xmas day and Boxing Day. It’s manually removed. Same goes for this.

 

[Silverdale]

Many thanks @sufian123.

 

[sufian123]

Many thanks @sufian123.

Your welcome.

 

[Argyle_mikey]

0646 from Rye to Ashford International re-timed to 0638, with an additional stop at Winchelsea at 0633. Now arrives AFK 0700 allowing connection to 0703 and 0706 London-bound trains.

Something actual to come out of Amber Rudd's Rail Summit. Good work by MLAG and THWART to achieve this.

Mike

 

[geoffk]

Of most interest to me is the further delay to Northern's planned improvements. While this seems sensible in circumstances where Northern will want to avoid another timetable debacle, this will be a disappointment to those still waiting for service enhancements due for introduction in December 2017 and which will now be at least 18 months late. On the other hand, there are quirks in the Calder Valley timetable which hopefully can be addressed. Wales and Borders is not affected so their Liverpool - Halton Curve - Chester service will presumably go ahead.

December 2018 timetable now appears on RTT. Man Vic to York and Selby trains will terminate at Leeds, with separate locals Leeds to York and Selby (the former not calling at Church Fenton except at peak times). I expect they will use the rarely-used east facing bay platforms 7 and 14 at Leeds.

Preston - Leeds extended to York, calling ONLY at Church Fenton, so an extra train per hour Leeds - York for which stock/crews have to be found. No through Blackpool yet and no apparent changes for Calder Valley stations although I've not gone through it in detail. There are issues with evening service stopping patterns so is it now too late to change anything?

 

[Adam0984]

December 2018 timetable now appears on RTT. Man Vic to York and Selby trains will terminate at Leeds, with separate locals Leeds to York and Selby (the former not calling at Church Fenton except at peak times). I expect they will use the rarely-used east facing bay platforms 7 and 14 at Leeds.

Preston - Leeds extended to York, calling ONLY at Church Fenton, so an extra train per hour Leeds - York for which stock/crews have to be found. No through Blackpool yet and no apparent changes for Calder Valley stations although I've not gone through it in detail. There are issues with evening service stopping patterns so is it now too late to change anything?

The Leeds to York and Selby trains will utilise the 170s on some services hence why they’ve been split as they can’t run on the Calder Valley

 

[northernchris]

The Leeds to York and Selby trains will utilise the 170s on some services hence why they’ve been split as they can’t run on the Calder Valley

I thought the Leeds - York were being interworked with the York - Preston services?

 

[Adam0984]

I thought the Leeds - York were being interworked with the York - Preston services?

So they are I didn’t notice that and the platform allocations on RTT

 

[geoffk]

The Leeds to York and Selby trains will utilise the 170s on some services hence why they’ve been split as they can’t run on the Calder Valley

Hourly service at Church Fenton, but calling there southbound incurs a significant time penalty because of the low speed crossover. Any chance of a higher-speed turnout being put in?

 

[323235]

Re-reading the explanation in the TfN Train Service Planning paper:

I interpret this as saying that there are two reasons why the previously-planned Blackpool - Macclesfield service will be diverted to Hazel Grove:

1. It enables a Slow line routing from Slade Lane to Stockport, calling at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, in order that those two stations get the 4tph that was specified in the TSR and which they have always had until 1tph was axed in May 2018. These calls would not have been possible with the Macclesfield destination, because the train would then have been caught by the following express before it reached Macclesfield. Users of Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel have, no doubt, benefited from the support of TfGM as an influential stakeholder in TfN.
2. There is less risk that a late running service from Blackpool will delay southbound VTWC and/or XC expresses. Even before the May 2018 timetable change, the punctuality performance of the previous Blackpool to Hazel Grove service was poor, because of delays through the Castlefield corridor. Since the Blackpool via Bolton service was temporarily cut back to Piccadilly in May, the increased congestion in the corridor has worsened its performance.

It doesn't look like Transport for the North are giving up long term with the idea of a second local service per hour to Macclesfield / Stoke and even a service to Blythe Bridge!

 

[30907]

Hourly service at Church Fenton, but calling there southbound incurs a significant time penalty because of the low speed crossover. Any chance of a higher-speed turnout being put in?

What's the turnout speed? The WTT allows an extra 1/2 minute southbound from Ulleskelf, and you'd have to relocate the trailing crossover as well.

 

[louis97]

Hourly service at Church Fenton, but calling there southbound incurs a significant time penalty because of the low speed crossover. Any chance of a higher-speed turnout being put in?

The turnout for Southbound arriving services at Church Fenton is already 40mph, so should be approached with flashing yellows (unable to check right now). Therefore its unlikely anything faster would get put in, as 40mph seems fast enough for a train stopping. However the speed on departure for Southbound services is 15mph over the connection towards Leeds.

 

[30907]

The turnout for Southbound arriving services at Church Fenton is already 40mph, so should be approached with flashing yellows (unable to check right now). Therefore its unlikely anything faster would get put in, as 40mph seems fast enough for a train stopping. However the speed on departure for Southbound services is 15mph over the connection towards Leeds.

Thanks. There's no realistic way of altering the south end of the loop as it's on the outside of the curve - you'd have to extend the loop quite a way on what is currently non-railway land.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

It doesn't look like Transport for the North are giving up long term with the idea of a second local service per hour to Macclesfield / Stoke and even a service to Blythe Bridge!

Good! Northern don't care about anything south of Macclesfield, local Crewe-Manchester route has much better service times and frequency despite lower passenger usage figures!

Blythe Bridge seems an odd choice though, would Uttoxeter make more sense?

 

[scrapy]

Good! Northern don't care about anything south of Macclesfield, local Crewe-Manchester route has much better service times and frequency despite lower passenger usage figures!

Blythe Bridge seems an odd choice though, would Uttoxeter make more sense?

Neither make a lot of sense as it would mean diesels running under the wires and there are much better options for the bi-modes. Does any one on TFN board live in Blythe Bridge by any chance?

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Neither make a lot of sense as it would mean diesels running under the wires and there are much better options for the bi-modes. Does any one on TFN board live in Blythe Bridge by any chance?

Haha, potentially!
Other options? Stafford? Wolverhampton? Although it starts to get messy with fitting a 'local' service in amongst various XC/VT/WMT services.
Could keep it terminating at Stoke but extend it north of Piccadilly? But that is partially what caused issues to start with and the current reason Congleton's Sunday service is still awful.

 

[bengley]

Not quite - Mossley is still included in the Hull service and 185s timings only just fit into the timetable from Manchester - Huddersfield on 100mph timings.

Also worth mentioning that the stoppers will not connect at Huddersfield - the Leeds train leaves 6 minutes before the Train from Manchester arrives.

In the up direction they arrive and leave simultaneously and so there's no connection there either.

 

[BMIFlyer]

In terms of turnaround times, the recommended rule of thumb is 10 mins for every hour of inbound journey. So a Newcastle-Manchester Airport service would be looking at about 25-30 mins. If they’re planning 10 mins this suggests the mandatory planning rules for Manchester Airport are inadequate (as is the number of terminal platforms.)

10 minute turnrounds are what TPE has actually had at the Airport since May 2018, for the Newcastle and Middlesbrough diagrams.

The plan from December is that trains from Newcastle will turn around and go to Middlesbrough. Trains from Middlesbrough will turn around and head to Newcastle. The result is a 25-40 mins turnaround at Man Airport.

The Mk5As will only do Liverpool to Scarborough until late Spring and then will start going to Middlesbrough from May when the turnaround times at Man Air will change again (hopefully the timetable will be more resilient by then).

 

[Greybeard33]

The plan from December is that trains from Newcastle will turn around and go to Middlesbrough. Trains from Middlesbrough will turn around and head to Newcastle. The result is a 25-40 mins turnaround at Man Airport.

The Mk5As will only do Liverpool to Scarborough until late Spring and then will start going to Middlesbrough from May when the turnaround times at Man Air will change again (hopefully the timetable will be more resilient by then).

The Rail North Committee Train Service Planning report, linked in post #248, states that TPE's timetable bid for May 2019 includes continuation of extended turnrounds at Manchester Airport. Does that not mean that interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services will continue, precluding use of Mk5As?

 

[BMIFlyer]

The Rail North Committee Train Service Planning report, linked in post #248, states that TPE's timetable bid for May 2019 includes continuation of extended turnrounds at Manchester Airport. Does that not mean that interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services will continue, precluding use of Mk5As?

There will be NO Mk5As working to Newcastle.

 

[Greybeard33]

There will be NO Mk5As working to Newcastle.

So none working to Middlesbrough either?

 

[BMIFlyer]

So none working to Middlesbrough either?

The Mk5A's will be going from Man Airport to Middlesbrough and Liverpool to Scarborough. There will be one diagram to Middlesbrough that utilises a class 802 as well IF the plan to run ECS from Middlesbrough to Saltburn and/or Redcar to change ends goes ahead, due to being 1x Mk5A set short (requires 14 loco hauled sets with the new plan and we only have 13).

Liverpool to the seaside requires loco hauled 6 sets, 1 set will be on maintenance and the other 6 sets will be on the Middlesbrough turns. Will need 1 class 802 (will be a 185 until then) to work Middlesbrough diagram number 7.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Mk5A's will be going from Man Airport to Middlesbrough and Liverpool to Scarborough. There will be one diagram to Middlesbrough that utilises a class 802 as well IF the plan to run ECS from Middlesbrough to Saltburn and/or Redcar to change ends goes ahead, due to being 1x Mk5A set short (requires 14 loco hauled sets with the new plan and we only have 13).

Liverpool to the seaside requires loco hauled 6 sets, 1 set will be on maintenance and the other 6 sets will be on the Middlesbrough turns. Will need 1 class 802 (will be a 185 until then) to work Middlesbrough diagram number 7.

So you are saying that the Rail North report is wrong and the 10 minute turnrounds will be coming back in May, so that the Newcastle and Middlesbrough diagrams can be separated again?