Invitation to tender for the next Northern franchise

[Anvil1984]

The second service via Sunderland would require Nexus support and it was Nexus who cut the funding for the previous second Newcastle to Sunderland per hour because he Metro punctuality was poor

 

[tbtc]

The second service via Sunderland would require Nexus support and it was Nexus who cut the funding for the previous second Newcastle to Sunderland per hour because he Metro punctuality was poor

It's a shame that any such service would be seen as unprofitable (and therefore require such subsidies) - but I can't argue with the facts.

 

[John55]

There was a half hourly all stations service between Liverpool and Warrington Central for a period - in the 90s I think. Generally though one slow train per hour has been the rule for the last century or so, with a fast train every hour as well. The current 1 slow-1 semifast-2 fast pattern is the most generous ever provided. Unfortunately my local station Sankey has to make do with 1 per hour off-peak.....

At the west end of the line I think you are correct about the basic service were the service is slow, semi-fast and fast. At the east end it is more semi-fast (1), semi-fast (2) and fast. There are an awful lot more people living along this line now compared to most of the last century and there are some serious proposals to add extra stations especially in the Warrington area that will need a complete revision to the service if they are to be built.

At the east end of the line services were better from Glazebrook into Manchester before 1964 (I have a timetable for 1963!) with Liverpool/Warrington/Irlam to Manchester stoppers plus the Wigan to Manchester service which added a dozen trains each day though as always in those days the regularity was not always good.

Comparing the services from 60 years ago can be quite difficult as they ran Liverpool Central to Manchester Central then and still served Widnes Central as well as the current route.

You're changing what you're saying now. You said:

There are 22 stations on the line and the stoppers miss out 6, so like I said you're original statement was an exaggeration.

My calculation takes into account that the 6 stations that are missed out on each service differ. Off peak there are 3 service patterns. The xx:55 from Lime St calls at all stations to Warrington then misses Padgate, Glazebrook, Flixton, Chassen Rd, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park. In even hours the xx:27 from Lime St misses Edge Hill, Hunts Cross, Halewood, Sankey, Glazebrook and Chassen Rd. In odd hours the xx:27 from Lime St misses Edge Hill, Hunts Cross, Halewood, Sankey, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park.

Now I have counted again I see there are actually 10 intermediate stations out of 20 that receive half, or a quarter, of the service.

I hadn't checked the latest figures so didn't realise Widnes had a 10% year on year increase. However, the fact remains that Widnes has a lot more trains than Buxton and Knutsford and doesn't get a lot more passengers.

I am glad we now agree that Buxton and Knutsford do not have a lot more passengers than Widnes. I have no doubt if Buxton and Knutsford were situated on busier main lines they would have more trains but the railway builders went a different way.

I'm saying that a lack of a call at Chassen Rd doesn't prevent people travelling to or from that area using the train. I'm not saying it's ideal but it's an insignificant issue compared to Denton getting one train per week, where there isn't an alternative station in walking distance.

Denton has no effective train service and is a quite different issue.

On that basis what's the point of Hazel Grove having 2tph or Burley Park having 2tph when there's buses at frequent intervals?

A frequent train service is always a good thing for the passenger. My point was an hourly service is very unattractive and it allows competing bus services to offer a better service. Once a train service is half hourly or better it is always likely to be the best option for a passenger whereas an hourly service is not. In the case of this route the situation is made worse by the relatively poor timekeeping of the longer distance services, which frequently disrupts the stoppers.

I'm saying it's a disadvantage that all trains call at all stations if you're travelling end-to-end. The journey time for Chester-Liverpool and Liverpool-Southport is uncompetitive with fast services between Manchester and Liverpool and between Manchester and Leeds.

I don’t really understand this comment as Chester or Southport to Liverpool takes less time than Liverpool or Leeds to Manchester. When a semi-fast service was tried from Liverpool – Southport in the 1970s it was a failure and the service reverted to all trains stopping at all stations. On suburban lines improved frequency of service reduces overall journey times by reducing waiting time at the start of the rail part of the journey. This benefit outweighs any benefit from a few faster services and also the better frequency benefits all other stations on the line.

And how would the city line stations between South Parkway and Lime Street be served? By slowing down a long distance service maybe?

If the services were reorganised as I suggested (and for many years this was active MPTE policy hence the concrete sleepers with plugs for insulators on the line) and the circumstances allowed the electrification to Warrington I would not foresee much difficulty organizing alternative services for Edge Hill, Mossley Hill and West Allerton. Who knows there might even be a Liverpool – Runcorn – Chester service by then!

 

[pemma]

John55: You previously claimed the off-peak stoppers are so quiet because they miss out half of the stations. Like I said out of 22 stations they miss out 6 and those 6 are the quieter ones. I still fail to see how missing out some of the quieter stations and calling at the majority is supposed to have such a big effect on loadings. I'd expect it to be the difference between a highest loading of 40 and a highest loading of 45. It's not going to suddenly make the trains three times as full.

Your idea for splitting the stopper could also affect loadings as there will be less direct trains for cross-Warrington journeys.

Denton again comes back to another of your earlier arguments. You were arguing how stations so close to Manchester could have such a poor service - Denton is a much better example of that than Humphrey Park.

If you don't like Chester-Liverpool and Southport-Liverpool being compared to Liverpool-Manchester and Manchester-Leeds then perhaps compare them to Huddersfield-Leeds and Warrington-Manchester instead - again a mix of fast and slow services. 4tph being all stops is very rare. The advantages and disadvantages depend on the loadings at each station, while some of the stations on the Wirral get excellent loadings they don't really warrant 6tph to Liverpool with timings all over the places - one every 15 minutes, like it was, wouldn't be of much disadvantage to anyone.

 

[WatcherZero]

TfGM report on future routes/services being considered in the medium term.

http://www.transportforgreatermanch...iew_of_medium_term_mid-scale_rail_development

 

[pemma]

TfGM report on future routes/services being considered in the medium term.

http://www.transportforgreatermanch...iew_of_medium_term_mid-scale_rail_development

The bit on the Manchester-Huddersfield line is interesting.

There was some criticism on replacing the Victoria-Huddersfield service with Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts but it seems TfGM see that as a temporary measure from 2016-2018, with from 2018 (post electrification) a Victoria*-Huddersfield stopper should be introduced alongside the semi-fasts.

* They include a disclaimer saying their survey found most users weren't really bothered if they arrived at Piccadilly or Victoria, so Victoria may read Piccadilly if it's easier to implement in 2018.

 

[John55]

John55: You previously claimed the off-peak stoppers are so quiet because they miss out half of the stations. Like I said out of 22 stations they miss out 6 and those 6 are the quieter ones. I still fail to see how missing out some of the quieter stations and calling at the majority is supposed to have such a big effect on loadings. I'd expect it to be the difference between a highest loading of 40 and a highest loading of 45. It's not going to suddenly make the trains three times as full.

I don’t know why you keep saying only 6 out of 20 (or 22) stations have a poor service. The 6 stations that are missed are not the same on each service so the overall effect is that half the stations are served by one train per hour or fewer. If a poor service is provided by the railway at a station the public will not use it unless there is no choice. In the areas served by Chassen Road, Humphrey Park or Flixton there are alternatives to the train and people will use them.

In Merseyside, for example, frequent trains stop at Wavertree, Bank Hall and Bootle Oriel Rd which have fewer people living near the station than the stations mentioned above but they are used by many more passengers because there is a decent service and not 1 train every 2 hours. No one minds the 1 or 2 trains per hour missing out Wavertree (or most other stations on the line) because there are at least 2 trains per hour on each route.

Your idea for splitting the stopper could also affect loadings as there will be less direct trains for cross-Warrington journeys.

For some journeys yes but for others my suggestion would offer quicker journeys as there would be no need to wait for 30 minutes at Warrington for the next stopping service. The current service was imposed by the SRA to allow direct services to Birchwood from west of Warrington when the Northern franchise was let on the infamous “no growth” basis. My suggestion is to reinstate the traditional service on the line but with half hourly frequencies. My own opinion is that Manchester is a more important traffic objective than Birchwood and traffic would reflect that if the service provided allowed.

My suggestion is not necessarily the only or best idea but I think the current service is very poor and I don’t understand why you seem so against providing a better service at the intermediate stations on this line.

Denton again comes back to another of your earlier arguments. You were arguing how stations so close to Manchester could have such a poor service - Denton is a much better example of that than Humphrey Park.

Denton is not on a radial route to/from Manchester on which most stopping trains speed through.

If you don't like Chester-Liverpool and Southport-Liverpool being compared to Liverpool-Manchester and Manchester-Leeds then perhaps compare them to Huddersfield-Leeds and Warrington-Manchester instead - again a mix of fast and slow services. 4tph being all stops is very rare. The advantages and disadvantages depend on the loadings at each station, while some of the stations on the Wirral get excellent loadings they don't really warrant 6tph to Liverpool with timings all over the places - one every 15 minutes, like it was, wouldn't be of much disadvantage to anyone.

I think you are comparing chalk and cheese. The Liverpool – Chester service has a relatively low proportion of its traffic going end to end. Most traffic is from Liverpool/Birkenhead to intermediate stations and from intermediate stations to Chester. There are 13 intermediate stations and the business at these stations is pretty evenly spread with only Hamilton Square being much busier (2.5m) and Spital, Bache and Capenhurst notably lower (50k) than the rest in terms of passenger numbers. Between Leeds and Huddersfield the overwhelming traffic is Huddersfield to Leeds with Huddersfield (4m) having more than 10 times as much traffic as any of the other 7 stations except Dewsbury (1.4m). While the idea of some fast trains from Chester to Liverpool has some appeal I don’t think the end to end traffic warrants it.

Trains still run every 15 minutes between Hooton and Liverpool. There are now some additional trains as well so the intervals are 7/8/15/7/8/15 minutes. The timetable has hardly gone to being “all over the places”.

 

[tbtc]

* They include a disclaimer saying their survey found most users weren't really bothered if they arrived at Piccadilly or Victoria

One to remember for future debates

 

[WatcherZero]

The survey results:

On Manchester destination

* 42% of passengers had no preference between Piccadilly and Victoria;
* 30% stated that their journey would worsen if trains were diverted to Piccadilly;
* 22% stated that they would prefer trains to serve Piccadilly; and
* 5% stated they would cease to travel if the services transferred to Piccadilly.

On whether the service should continue from Huddersfield to Leeds (not practical with a stopper)

* 56% of passengers were neither in favour nor against such a proposal; and
* 36% of those surveyed stated that their journeys would improve by the Leeds through running proposal.

On whether people prefered a stopper or a semi-fast

* 43% of those surveyed stated their journeys would improve with the introduction of the skip stopping proposal;
* 31% of passengers were neither in favour nor against the proposal; and
* 26% stated their journey would worsen, or they would stop using train.

 

[pemma]

I don’t know why you keep saying only 6 out of 20 (or 22) stations have a poor service.

Will you please look at what your originally said and how you expressed it. You've completely changed your argument and are complaining about my counter-argument to your original argument not being relevant to your revised argument.

 

[Viscount702]

There was some criticism on replacing the Victoria-Huddersfield service with Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts but it seems TfGM see that as a temporary measure from 2016-2018, with from 2018 (post electrification) a Victoria*-Huddersfield stopper should be introduced alongside the semi-fasts.

* They include a disclaimer saying their survey found most users weren't really bothered if they arrived at Piccadilly or Victoria, so Victoria may read Piccadilly if it's easier to implement in 2018.

Originally all 6 Platforms at Victoria were to be electrified.They then decided not to electrify 1 & 2 .Why they did this I don't know but it seems a very odd decision. Consequently there will be no east facing electrified bays to terminate electric trains from the east. Maybe that is why they were proposing to move the service to Piccadilly as they wouldn't want to block up the through lines with a terminator

 

[pemma]

Originally all 6 Platforms at Victoria were to be electrified.They then decided not to electrify 1 & 2 .Why they did this I don't know but it seems a very odd decision.

Assuming most Calder Vale services are extended beyond Victoria, the Huddersfield-Victoria ceases to operate and that Stalybridge turn backs will be EMU (and will probably continue to Wigan or Liverpool), what would then use platforms 1 and 2 apart from possibly some early and late services?

 

[Viscount702]

Assuming most Calder Vale services are extended beyond Victoria, the Huddersfield-Victoria ceases to operate and that Stalybridge turn backs will be EMU (and will probably continue to Wigan or Liverpool), what would then use platforms 1 and 2 apart from possibly some early and late services?

I don't think any of us at present know what the pattern of services will be in 2018. Nevertheless based on what has been said and to reiterate the points you make it is difficult to see what would terminate in Platforms 1 & 2 in 2018. One service that might would have been the Huddersfield- Victoria and by moving that or a version of it to Piccadilly I come to the same conclusion as you. Therefore by moving this train to Piccadilly you remove the need to wire 1 & 2. However this could be short sighted. It Surely can't cost that much to wire these to platforms.

On another subject do we know when Ardwick will be wired for the Class 350's

 

[pemma]

I don't think any of us at present know what the pattern of services will be in 2018. Nevertheless based on what has been said and to reiterate the points you make it is difficult to see what would terminate in Platforms 1 & 2 in 2018.

I think even if we completely ignore any proposals for changes to services, we know the Ordsall Chord would not be viable unless there are regular Piccadilly-Victoria services set to run on it. With no terminating platforms from the west at Victoria and no plans to build any the only sensible way of implementing this would be to have Piccadilly-Victoria trains continuing beyond Victoria.

On another subject do we know when Ardwick will be wired for the Class 350's

TfGM's document doesn't mention that but then they are referring to stations opposed to junctions.

* Manchester Deansgate – Newton-le-Willows (December 2013);
* Liverpool Lime Street – Earlestown, Huyton – Wigan North Western
and Manchester Victoria – Eccles (December 2014);
* Preston – Blackpool North (May 2015);
* Stalybridge - Manchester Victoria – Preston (December 2016);
*Guide Bridge – Stalybridge - Leeds – York / Selby (probably complete
around December 2018 although this date has not been confirmed).

However, we do know that it'll be the latter end of next year when the 350/4s should be delivered and that it's only a short section of line of the electrified Piccadilly-Guide Bridge line, so I would imagine some time next year to be ready in time for the delivery of the 350/4s.

 

[tbtc]

Originally all 6 Platforms at Victoria were to be electrified.They then decided not to electrify 1 & 2 .Why they did this I don't know but it seems a very odd decision. Consequently there will be no east facing electrified bays to terminate electric trains from the east

Whilst there may not be any/many EMU terminators from the east, this does seem like a false economy to be (not wiring a couple of platforms)

 

[Nym]

Indeed, not wiring these platforms would be regreted when the re-building of Piccadilly comes with HS2, in deed I'd be looking at re-instating 6 track East of Victoria in anticipation of this happening, or at least having this as part of the HS2 works, this would see a significant amount of East Manchester Line services diverted into Victoria to give space to close some approaches or platforms at Piccadilly.

 

[John55]

Originally all 6 Platforms at Victoria were to be electrified.They then decided not to electrify 1 & 2 .Why they did this I don't know but it seems a very odd decision. Consequently there will be no east facing electrified bays to terminate electric trains from the east. Maybe that is why they were proposing to move the service to Piccadilly as they wouldn't want to block up the through lines with a terminator

I cannot find the reference at the moment but my understanding was the electrification of the east facing platforms at Victoria (1&2) was taken out of the North West electrification project and moved into the Trans-pennine electrification project. I don't know why but perhaps it just allows a bit more time to think about what changes are required to the east end of Victoria before putting the hardware up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will you please look at what your originally said and how you expressed it. You've completely changed your argument and are complaining about my counter-argument to your original argument not being relevant to your revised argument.

Yes what I originally, rather flippantly, said was incorrect. I therefore explained why I thought the current off peak train service was poor in more detail in post 153. I assumed you realised that, I will try not to assume in future.

 

[pemma]

Yes what I originally, rather flippantly, said was incorrect. I therefore explained why I thought the current off peak train service was poor in more detail in post 153. I assumed you realised that, I will try not to assume in future.

You started the post by saying "My calculation takes into account" making it sound like you were defending your previous comment, not that you were changing your argument. If it's a new argument why quote from a previous one before starting it?

 

[WatcherZero]

I cannot find the reference at the moment but my understanding was the electrification of the east facing platforms at Victoria (1&2) was taken out of the North West electrification project and moved into the Trans-pennine electrification project. I don't know why but perhaps it just allows a bit more time to think about what changes are required to the east end of Victoria before putting the hardware up.

Thats my understanding too, also the proposal to add west facing bays at Victoria has been replaced by extra platforms at Stalybridge and Rochdale instead.

 

[Viscount702]

Thats my understanding too, also the proposal to add west facing bays at Victoria has been replaced by extra platforms at Stalybridge and Rochdale instead.

Platforms 1 & 2 were taken out of NW Electrification as confirmed in the CP4 March update.

Victoria- Stalybridge is part of TP Electrification. However as noted in the CP5 Delivery plan "electrification between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge is included in the remit and is being developed by the North West electrification programme"

and the latest TfGM meeting note as posted earlier in this thread by WZ confirms that Victoria- Stalybridge will be done as part of Preston-Victoria- Stalybridge and completed as per NW Electrification in 2016. Precisely what is being done and whether or not this include 1 & 2 is not clear.

On bays the NR website still refers as part of the Victoria revamp to new platforms in 2018/9. They are not however mentioned in the Hub update.

The extra platforms at Stalybridge were not part of the Hub and were being provided regardless. The extra one at Rochdale was not originally part of the Hub but has been added in latterly I think and it is now believed that the extra platforms at Stalybridge plus the one Rochdale means none will be provided at Victoria.

The latest revision by NR to the Hub proposals states

"We're replacing the station roof and installing additional track to allow more flexibility and capacity in the railway approaches to the station"

Where this extra track and how much of is to be placed is not clear.(Maybe those in the Know could help) I think many believed that extra track would be provided to the west as part of the Chord but there are now suggestions there may be some to the east as well.

Where this could go is not clear but could this be some turn backs in lieu of west facing bays in addition to the platforms mentioned above.

The question arises where the Liverpool electric trains will be turned round prior to electrification to Stalybridge in 2016 assuming of course there is now an intention to run an electric service prior to 2016 because of the Stock to run it issue

 

[WatcherZero]

Possibly turning at Pic (though that would be a nightmare) but more likely they would run through to Manchester Airport. Excluding the question of where the stock would come to operate it the plan was limited number of Manchester-Liverpool electrics from Dec 2014 but more focus on replacing Liverpool-Wigan/Preston services with electrics from Dec 2014 (following the Manchester-Wigan electrics in Dec 2013).