Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[Bletchleyite]

Judging by most of the Northern trains I see around here - they are more likely driven by. BBC Micro than an Apple Mac ��

Until the late 1990s/early 2000s some station PIS actually were. They were a common choice for public facing displays as the Teletext mode was, in its 1980s-style way, quite good for displaying information and basic graphics.

 

[tsr]

As people have already alluded to, there are some good things about travel in the north (or frankly anywhere north of the Thames, for that matter). Principal amongst these has to be the provision of express, long-distance trains between all manner of interesting and vibrant cities, most of said trains running on fast linespeeds, with sufficient crew, modern facilities etc. Sure, the response of the railway to some events, random spates of ECML dewirements, and the axle counters falling apart on the south WCML, all add annoyance - but generally speaking, there's a lot more potential for decent quality longer-distance travel and commuting outside the Home Counties. You're lucky to be able to hide under someone's armpit on a Class 700 now - that's now how busy it is, and how little comfort there is. Compare this to someone who commutes to or from some of the WCML towns and cities - on a Pendolino...

The rail systems of the Midlands northwards do seem to have few resources to cope with things out of the ordinary - sometimes you can't just shove people on the next train because there isn't really one, the attitude to big events seems to be to prevent as many people as possible from travelling by brewing up trouble with security guards, and just hope for the best with the rest of them - and of course there's the complexity of all the different traction, diversion routes, different PTEs and user groups with various bits of influence (all of which are entirely baffling to a southerner who is used to systems being fairly sanitised in this regard - TfL vs the rest of the world, really)...

Top of my list for the north is not electrification (as big a burden as there ever was, nowadays) or even longer trains (they'd be much emptier than they should be at certain times, and I'm not convinced the majority of stations would cope, either with platform lengths or dispatch). There needs to be a step change in providing a useful frequency of services, including over previously diversionary routes, if they would be helpful. By making trains more frequent, you can have a more modular network, so that if a 3 coach train fails, it doesn't drag 9 other coaches with it - but there's another train 10 or 15 or 20 minutes later which can accommodate just enough people, without being too uncomfortable or too far away.

By all means these trains should be as eco-friendly as possible (I dislike coming home from work all slimy and grubby from diesel fumes just as much as the next member of operational staff, much as the noise is lovely while I'm there, and I sympathise with non-enthusiast passengers who have to put up with clouds of exhaust everywhere). And by all means the stations should be given a lick of paint, nice shelters and working TVMs. But attract people with the core offering, for goodness' sake!

Alas, a dream thus far, it seems.

 

[daikilo]

My opinion is that in essence "the North" has a rail service which on purely economic grounds could be a lot worse.

I appreciate that some services are so loaded as to be uncomfortable or even impossible to board, but at those times, little if any stock is parked in depots anywhere near. One paradox of Pacer replacement is that it won't be possible to use them to lengthen trains (and maybe not technically feasible other than other Pacers/150s until they have gone).

As for HS3, it has no justification in real life. Even a little curve easing/junction acceleration on existing lines is difficult to justify for what are mainly short-distance trips.

I do hope however that the Northern metropolitan areas and counties will take up the Grayling offer to listen to their needs, and make them public.

 

[yorksrob]

On the subject of HS3 and trans-Pennine in general, it often seems to me as though the slowest section is that between Stalybridge and Pic/Vic, therefore reinstating the four tracks between Guide Bridge to Piccadilly might be a cheaper way to shorten journey times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the subject of HS3 and trans-Pennine in general, it often seems to me as though the slowest section is that between Stalybridge and Pic/Vic, therefore reinstating the four tracks between Guide Bridge to Piccadilly might be a cheaper way to shorten journey times.

Or increasing linespeeds generally. The Picc eastern approach from Longsight-ish onwards is grindingly slow. In Germany it's much more common to be running at 100mph+ until just before the terminus. I know we slow a little sooner for safety reasons, but it needn't be so grindingly slow.

 

[daikilo]

Or increasing linespeeds generally. The Picc eastern approach from Longsight-ish onwards is grindingly slow. In Germany it's much more common to be running at 100mph+ until just before the terminus. I know we slow a little sooner for safety reasons, but it needn't be so grindingly slow.

This is an example of what I mean, to "straighten out" or accelerate Leeds or Manchester approaches would be very expensive if even possible. And an HS3 could not be built through either unless a long-way underground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is an example of what I mean, to "straighten out" or accelerate Leeds or Manchester approaches would be very expensive if even possible.

In Manchester's case would they? The Eastern approach, unlike Leeds, is quite straight.

Speeding up Castlefield would be harder.

 

[otomous]

In short, yes, rail in the North is as bad as people say. I am a resident of Preston, I use the railways almost every weekend of each month, and can truly say that things are horrendous up here.

When London wants new stations, London gets them. Ditto a cross-borough railway. Ditto an entirely new high-speed railway into Euston.

The North hardly gets the crumbs from London's table. I think we can all agree that DfT, based in London, only look at the country from within the boundaries of Greater London and the Home Counties. That is why we still have Pacers up here, why new stations come very few and far between (both geographically and in terms of time). It's why stock tends to be loaned to loanees who are loaned to someone else who are loaned to someone else who might be promised to someone else. Yes, we get stock up here, but it's third-hand. London asks for new stock: London gets it.

I am a proud northerner. I know that the economy of this country will always be skewed towards London, which is why the gap between London and northern rail funding is so many billions. I have been accused of being "bitter" and all sorts of things (not on here) about my attitude, but it's only from experiencing the true state of railways. I know, as fact, that something as Tank Engine old-fashioned as the tokens on the Ormskirk line would never be allowed elsewhere: it's even worse when you think of the dank, damp, clapped out single-carriages which trundle along it!

I absolutely agree that the North gets a poor deal, and that is partly bound up with a London/SE focused government/ruling class etc.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that London gets what it asks for every time.

Slam doors did not disappear from London until 2005. There are plenty of 80s units still trundling around not really fit by modern standards too.

We also have a problem here called the third rail. As the first generation of third rail stock was not convertible as EMUs tend to be now, there was nowhere that we could have them cascaded from. However plenty of stock swapping has gone on in the third rail area and continues to do so. When it needed replacement - and it had been THRASHED - the only way to do so was to create new builds - 455s, Networkers, 319s, Electrostars, Desiros etc. I'd be more than happy to get some 3rd hand 319s on my local route but doesn't look like it's happening any time soon.

The tube was in a dreadful state until the great overhaul programme started. The met line recently said goodbye to 50 year old trains and the ones on the Bakerloo/Piccadilly are getting on for that.

As government policy moved away from public to private, London suffered too. Some of the plans from before the war such as Crossrail, are only happening now. The DLR and Jubilee line extension had to be prised from the Treasury. Plenty of other useful schemes never get anywhere or take years to develop.

The parts of London dependent on trains rather than tubes have historically been worse off in terms of frequencies and fares, especially South London, and progress has been made on this albeit slowly. Look at the problems discussed on this forum about trying to get more stock for South Eastern. Even now on Sundays frequencies and train lengths are poor, and overcrowding is worse than normal rush hours sometimes.

As for new stations, well Mitcham Eastfields took about 35 years to open.

Part of the issue is the sheer scale of the North in comparison. Its relatively easy to create a London wide body to look after all the transport therein - and every time we've had one of these, things start to happen. But it's more difficult in the North. Just calling it "the North" seems unhelpful. There seem to me to be three levels of service needed - Inter City for fast connections between cities and towns; Regional Services to cover the stopping services over similar routes; and Metro services for within the towns themselves. But then take West Yorkshire - do we group Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield as one major urban zone and make that our metro area? In which case who represents it, and where have we drawn the line between the three in terms of the three service groups. I suspect there are no easy answers. Devolution is key I think but how to do it?

 

[xotGD]

Just to add a few more thoughts to the mix:

We have too many trains with an inadequate maximum speed, and the line speed on too many local lines is too slow. Going by train ought to be quicker than driving. The first point also creates unnecessary problems when local and express services have to share the same route.

We need more fast (2-hour) services between Leeds and KX - York has one an hour, Leeds has one a day!

Finally, while Northern can currently only provide a maximum of 4 carriages for rush-hour services from Leeds to Airedale & Wharfedale, the Embsay and Bolton Abbey can provide 5 carriages on a Sunday afternoon - the highest capacity service in the area!

 

[daikilo]

In Manchester's case would they? The Eastern approach, unlike Leeds, is quite straight..

As in straights then sharp bends? Note: not clear how 4-track will help for speed other than seperating stoppers from fasts, but better use of the infrastructure for the 2 tracks at least might for the fasts. And how about some pendolino-style stock to accelerate these and the "over-Penines" sections?

This particular discussion is an example of where "the north" is in some ways bound by its industrial history, and possibly always will be until someone agrees to an LS3 making the best of the currently available land-take.

 

[tbtc]

A lot of the growth/ improvements since privatisation seem to have been on the "InterCity" and "Network South East" bits of the old BR.

The services on many bits of the old "Provincial" have seen little improvement, with Pacers and Sprinters still running the same routes, often at the same frequencies.

This is true of other areas of England though, but because some of those routes are part of "London" franchises, it's easy to ignore them. I don't think that "Provincial" routes in northern England have done much worse than equivalent ones elsewhere - but since they are part of EMT/ LM/ FGW they can go under the radar.

Easy for someone to moan about how few new trains "Northern" has had since privatisation but that's only because of the way that the services were split up here. Plenty of 175/ 185/ 220/ 221/ 390s etc running around the "North", it's just that they have different coloured vinyl on the side.

The chip/shoulder interface doesn't help much either

I think we can all agree that DfT, based in London, only look at the country from within the boundaries of Greater London and the Home Counties

Hence the WCRM, the commitments to electrification of the TPML, GWML and MML, all of the infrastructure improvements that we've had?

Yes, we get stock up here, but it's third-hand. London asks for new stock: London gets it

You should maybe google classes like 170s, 175s, 185s, 220s, 221s, 222s, 333s, 390s and other brand new stock introduced in northern England since privatisation?

Maybe even look to the future with 195s, 331, 800s, 801s, 802s and other stock being built right now to serve the north of England?

It'd save you some time, next time you feel the need to rant about how all of our stock is "third hand"

The North of England has a population 3 times the size of Scotland with the population of Yorkshire and Humberside alone being similar to that of Scotland yet Scotland has no Pacers while the North is infested with them, that suggests to me a lot of improvement is long overdue

One big difference is that much of the population of Scotland that you refer to is confined to the area between about Dundee and Ayr - having that population density makes rail much easier/ more attractive.

Plus, Scotland has much simpler "nodes" - there's demand into central Glasgow and demand into central Edinburgh.

Northern England has a much messier mixture of cities - it's not just about Manchester/ Leeds but also about Newcastle/ Liverpool/ Sheffield. Then there's places like Bradford/ Hull/ Sunderland. It becomes harder to provide a simple service, given the number of potential "centres" to serve.

Also worth pointing out that Scotland only has a handful of rural branches - quite long in the case of the WHL/ Kyle/ Far North - but not taking up a large number of DMUs.

In my experience the primary issue is the short trains.

If all the Pacers were actually 3-car Class 172s, and the 185s were 5-car, and the new TPE stock was to be 8-car sets etc, and a few more wires went up, it'd be just fine, I reckon.

I'd generally agree.

Things are much harder to improve around London, where you have lots of busy services already at the natural maximum length (ten/twelve coaches), so it becomes disproportionately expensive to improve their problems.

We don't need expensive solutions to solve every problem in "the North".

In terms of London services, I think they are pretty good. I certainly wouldn't want services from Yorkshire to be much faster as it runs the risk of the area becoming a London dormitory.

You aren't in favour of faster services to London?

My opinion is that in essence "the North" has a rail service which on purely economic grounds could be a lot worse

I agree.

Given the subsidies required to operate the services, just keeping the status quo can't necessarily be guaranteed.

Since nothing is being done to focus on the costs (guards retained, no service cuts even on the weakest branchlines, no routes being converted to cheaper Light Rail, no routes planned to close), is it any wonder that the Government is reluctant to spend more money?

(it bugs me when we just focus on one-off "infrastructure" spending and ignore the large amount of money required for annual subsidies)

I do hope however that the Northern metropolitan areas and counties will take up the Grayling offer to listen to their needs, and make them public.

We've spent years moaning about the lack of devolution... now we moan that "London" won't wave it's magic wand and insists that we are the ones making decisions about improving things in our neck of the woods.

On the subject of HS3 and trans-Pennine in general, it often seems to me as though the slowest section is that between Stalybridge and Pic/Vic, therefore reinstating the four tracks between Guide Bridge to Piccadilly might be a cheaper way to shorten journey times.

Terminating the TPE services in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly would have solved a lot of that (so that they weren't dependent upon getting a path to cross bits of the station throat to head on to Liverpool or into platforms where they could reverse out to the Airport).

Piccadilly would have been much more efficient if it was operated as three parallel stations that were pretty much operationally independent from each other (in the way that Clapham Junction functions fine because the Southern and SWT/SWR services aren't getting in each other's way).

All water under the bridge now that there's the Ordsall Chord, of course.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As in straights then sharp bends?

There's a sharp bend at Ardwick, but the approach from the WCML is a several mile long sweeping curve, yet most of that is not done at 125mph and should be (similarly the approach to Ardwick should be at full speed until it is necessary to start braking for the junction).

 

[pemma]

There are some routes which really need line speed improvements and some useful new links could be built to join up existing lines but it's the same in other parts of the country.

I think the biggest difference between the North and most of the rest of the country is the Northern fleet includes 79 x 142s and 23 x 144s and while we're getting rid of those they'll be 24 additional 150s joining the fleet, alongside the 58 we already have, with the 58 we already have being many more than Northern had in 2004 so it seems the North is becoming a retirement home for 150s.

However, it should be remembered the North is also served by TPE, Merseyrail XC, VTEC, VTWC, GC, EMT, ATW and LM. Many of the trains used by other operators who serve the North are either modern or heavily refurbished.

 

[notlob.divad]

Or rather, frequency is done the wrong way - city local services are low frequency (they need to be higher - at least half hourly, probably better) and regional expresses are short trains running on high frequencies (they need to be very long trains running on lower frequencies, portion worked if desired).

It's totally backside-about-face, as it were.

Agree with this, It is something we seem to have gone away from. Long distance services (the chosen few) now seem to be high frequency where as getting to those services for the majority of people involves rather infrequent connections. Therefore by the time you have got your slow local service to the main centre, waited for the long distance connection, and waited at the other end for the slow local service, you could have driven there and back twice in a car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree with this, It is something we seem to have gone away from. Long distance services (the chosen few) now seem to be high frequency where as getting to those services for the majority of people involves rather infrequent connections. Therefore by the time you have got your slow local service to the main centre, waited for the long distance connection, and waited at the other end for the slow local service, you could have driven there and back twice in a car.

The ideal would be to have an hourly timetable in which everything of any significance[1] connected with everything else of any significance, then a half-hourly overlay where the more frequent services connect, then some services have that beefed up to a 15 minute frequency (or 10, but *not* both). 20 can't be used for Northern services because it conflicts with half-hourly.

[1] Very low frequency services like the S&C and the Cumbrian Coast could of course fit onto the end of services as required, but always onto the connecting hourly slot even if that means they have to wait around for a bit to fit the slot properly.

 

[HSTEd]

In reality, all train services should be high frequency.
Long infrequent trains are simply not attractive to passengers.

Clockface timetables for all - and probably named stopping patterns similar to the Shinkansen in Japan.
And every stopping pattern should be at least hourly and probably normally half hourly or better.

 

[shredder1]

Its not reet gud in`t Norf on trans, no pigeon carriers and nowear to put das ferrets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality, all train services should be high frequency.
Long infrequent trains are simply not attractive to passengers.

Clockface timetables for all - and probably named stopping patterns similar to the Shinkansen in Japan.
And every stopping pattern should be at least hourly and probably normally half hourly or better.

I agree, but that isn't "high frequency".

Half-hourly is a sensible frequency base for regional and inter-regional services, with the branches on hourly (and the odd service less frequent). You can then overlay to 4tph on the busiest services. 3tph shouldn't be used anywhere as it breaks the model, and you can choose between either 4 or 6tph on your network but you can't have both for the same reason.

I think most of the SBB timetabling approach would suit the North, really. Long trains, half-hourly frequencies (as a whole) beefed up in areas of high demand, planned connections at major hubs, moderate speed running rather than high speed with reliability and robustness key. Targeted infrastructure changes (e.g. providing more platforms/overtaking opportunities at key interchanges to allow for planned connections) would be more sensible than building wholesale new lines.

It's just not like the SE where we have to cram trains in and just accept a bit of late running because the alternative is not carrying everyone.

And there is no place for trains of fewer than 3-4 coaches other than on very quiet branches like Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, the Cumbrian Coast etc. And soon there won't be a place for them there, either.

 

[notlob.divad]

Originally Posted by yorksrob View Post
In terms of London services, I think they are pretty good. I certainly wouldn't want services from Yorkshire to be much faster as it runs the risk of the area becoming a London dormitory.

You aren't in favour of faster services to London?

I agree with yorksrob. When I still lived in the North West I really didn't care about a faster journey to London, the only people who care about that are those that commute. Going to that there London was a day out, and I had to set aside at least a day to do it. Knocking half an hour off the journey time wasn't going to encourage me to go, or encourage me to go by train anymore.

However, knocking 5/10 minutes off my journey into Liverpool / Manchester / Preston, a journey I would do frequently. Or give me the option of getting to Sheffield in a reasonable time, I might just get the train instead of climbing into the car.

 

[Bantamzen]

Let's not get into yet another North vs South debate, its been done to death on here and is probably why the admins are trying to curtail this thread descending into that chaos again.

There is no doubt that in the last 15 years the picture has improved somewhat. I remember the last days of the Arriva (pre-DB) franchise and how they basically ran that into the ground. But since Northern have under two stewardships slowly improved punctuality and unit performance, as well as increasing capacity and finally ordering new stock. And TPE are doing the same, so in a couple of years we'll have lots of shiny new units rolling around much (if not all) of the North. Its a start, but it doesn't mean that enough is being done.

A lot of the lines in the North have either capacity or speed restrictions that could threaten to undermine at lot of the work put in so far. Many stations cannot handle more than 3 or 4 car units, and whilst new units will come with SDO (I presume) and the same could be retrofitted to older units where needed, having a 6 car 331 roll up to a platform capable of holding only 4 cars is going to lead to slower dwell times as people scramble through carriages when they release they are in the wrong position, whilst the ever increasing numbers of passengers that could probably expected would cause more and more crushes on platforms. So along with line improvements and (hopefully) North TP electrification, a programme of platform lengthening needs to be on cards. There is little point in increasing train length if many platforms along the route cannot cope with them, especially considering much of the new and planned cascades do not come with corridors between units.

Of course all this costs money, and we Northerners are going to have to pay for it in the long run. But don’t be fooled into this concept that things like electrification costs are running out of control, the work seems to continue around the rest of the world so why not here? Frankly you need to look more closely at DfT, and in particular those responsible for contracting for the answers. Whilst I do not have experience with that department, many decades in public service has shown me why so much of it ends up being way over budget. Without saying too much, a combination of naivety and lack of understanding results in situations that allow contractors to cream off more than they might otherwise do. EU regulations have also been blamed in the past, but they can be legislated away in around 18 months time, and frankly probably less because they always had exceptions built in.

It can be done, and under Osborne might well have been. I personally see no reason why it cannot still be done now, with a little bit more will from Westminster and a bit more savvy from Whitehall.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree, but that isn't "high frequency".

Half-hourly is a sensible frequency base for regional and inter-regional services, with the branches on hourly (and the odd service less frequent).

I don't think there is really any point having stations with less than a train an hour - and probably little point on having lines with less than two trains per hour.
Maintaining enormously expensive infrastructure for 3 cars an hour or less is pointless.

I think most of the SBB timetabling approach would suit the North, really. Long trains, half-hourly frequencies (as a whole) beefed up in areas of high demand, planned connections at major hubs, moderate speed running rather than high speed with reliability and robustness key. Targeted infrastructure changes (e.g. providing more platforms/overtaking opportunities at key interchanges to allow for planned connections) would be more sensible than building wholesale new lines.

But also inordinantly expensive, you know better than I do how much money had to be expended to provide the platform capacity to make planned short connections feasible.
The costs of all the extra platforms in the centre of cities would probably pay for four trains per hour on a lot of routes instead.

And without planned connections you are left with potentially 28 minute connections at major stations, which is not good for end to end travel times.

And there is no place for trains of fewer than 3-4 coaches other than on very quiet branches like Ormskirk-Preston, Kirkby-Wigan, the Cumbrian Coast etc. And soon there won't be a place for them there, either.

Whilst I might agree that all trainsets should be ordered at 3-4 cars, ordering the shear amount of diesel stock required for that now is not really a goer for political, economic and environmental reasons.

If the ORR accepts the estimates in the Kent Route study for third rail electrification then we might see some movement on this point.... a high intensity railway that wants to be economic really has to be electric - even in this era of supposedly amazing batteries.

And it would also provide access to the enormous amounts of stock required for a fully clockface timetable.

 

[yorksrob]

As in straights then sharp bends? Note: not clear how 4-track will help for speed other than seperating stoppers from fasts, but better use of the infrastructure for the 2 tracks at least might for the fasts. And how about some pendolino-style stock to accelerate these and the "over-Penines" sections?

This particular discussion is an example of where "the north" is in some ways bound by its industrial history, and possibly always will be until someone agrees to an LS3 making the best of the currently available land-take.

Exactly. At the moment, TPE's seem to travel fast enough through the hills - its the crawl into Manchester that seems to take an age. If four tracks could prevent them getting caught behind the Glossop stopper that would be a help - particularly as the track bed is largely intact.

 

[yorksrob]

You aren't in favour of faster services to London?

Given Leeds is already two hours twenty minutes away from London, I don't see much benefit to a shorter journey. Infact, I can see disadvantages if they begin to change the nature of Leeds' economy from a provincial centre to a dormitory of London.

 

[yorkie]

Let's not get into yet another North vs South debate, its been done to death on here...

I completely agree. This argument ruined several threads a while back; we had to have dedicated threads on the subject to avoid several threads going off topic and repeating the same old arguments, e.g. The “The North Of England Is Getting A Rough Deal” Thread.

If anyone thinks there are new arguments to be had in that thread and would like an existing thread on the matter re-opened or for us to consider a new thread on the subject, they are welcome to contact us, and we'll consider any request.

 

[HSTEd]

Given Leeds is already two hours twenty minutes away from London, I don't see much benefit to a shorter journey. Infact, I can see disadvantages if they begin to change the nature of Leeds' economy from a provincial centre to a dormitory of London.

If Leeds being a provincial centre is so good for the people living there, why would they be so keen to leave it and head to London itself?

EDIT:

Stalybridge to the vicinity of Manchester picadilly is only 8 miles, how about a double track new tunnel with 250km/h deisgn top speed?
It would form a stub that could be extended should the need arise to form a proper HSL.

The only question is how to terminate at the inner end.
And whether you make provision for a branch from the tunnel that could eventually head off in the direction of Marple to join the Hope Valley line.

It would completely disentangle the longer distance trains from the metro ones.

 

[yorksrob]

If Leeds being a provincial centre is so good for the people living there, why would they be so keen to leave it and head to London itself?

I moved from a dormitory area of London to live in Leeds, so you'll have to ask them that.

 

[xfield]

Exactly. At the moment, TPE's seem to travel fast enough through the hills - its the crawl into Manchester that seems to take an age. If four tracks could prevent them getting caught behind the Glossop stopper that would be a help - particularly as the track bed is largely intact.

Once the Ordsall Curve is open and TPE trains are running Stalybridge, Ashton-under-Lyne, Victoria, Picaddilly, there won't be a need will there? They'll avoid the Glossop and Hope Valley stoppers. Will there be much contention through Ashton and Victoria?

 

[yorksrob]

Once the Ordsall Curve is open and TPE trains are running Stalybridge, Ashton-under-Lyne, Victoria, Picaddilly, there won't be a need will there? They'll avoid the Glossop and Hope Valley stoppers. Will there be much contention through Ashton and Victoria?

True, but I have to say, I've never found Stalybridge - Victoria to be much faster frankly.

 

[Andyh82]

In reality, all train services should be high frequency.
Long infrequent trains are simply not attractive to passengers.

Clockface timetables for all - and probably named stopping patterns similar to the Shinkansen in Japan.
And every stopping pattern should be at least hourly and probably normally half hourly or better.

Except for the most rural if lines, an hourly service isn't attractive, I'd be looking at every 30 mins.

Also I wouldn't say there is any need for anything to be more frequent than every 15 mins. If more capacity is needed it should be done by train lengths. I'm not sure we need 6 TPEs per hour. Two to Liverpool, two to Manchester Airport, but each with 5-6 carriages would be sufficient at off peak times. This would leave more room for local stoppers which should be 4 cars rather than the current 2 and could perhaps run twice an hour rather than the current hourly.

 

[6Gman]

In short, yes, rail in the North is as bad as people say.

I know, as fact, that something as Tank Engine old-fashioned as the tokens on the Ormskirk line would never be allowed elsewhere: it's even worse when you think of the dank, damp, clapped out single-carriages which trundle along it!

What's wrong with token working?