Is rail REALLY that bad in the North?

[HSTEd]

How about just converting the entirity of the Durham Coastline to TWM?

Almost all the trains only run internally to the line or to Newcastle anyway.

 

[frodshamfella]

The franchise requirement is for 4 trains per day each way between Ellesmere Port and Helsby, 1 of which must be in the morning peak and 1 in the evening. This has been abused by Northern Rail who, for donkeys' years, have been running trains at 0619, 0653, 1534 and 1604 to optimize their stock utilization without a care in the world for passengers. The line is isolated from the rest of the franchise as some barmpot included it in Northern's franchise rather than Arriva Trains Wales.

In the new franchise, the requirement will I believe be for two trains per day from Ellesmere Port to Manchester and v.v., one in each peak. Thus the number of trains will be cut in half, but they will at least be more useful. And Northern will be running trains from Chester to Manchester and beyond via Helsby so the Ellesmere Port service will no longer be isolated from the rest of the franchise.

Is a shame the shuttles are going, so you would have had six trains a day on the line. I travelled on it the other week, and for the first time ever on the afternoon service out of Helsby, it was a four car service ! Even more strange there were more passengers on it than normal. I also feel its a shame Ince & Elton doesn't get a regular service, quite a bit of housing there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is a shame the shuttles are going, so you would have had six trains a day on the line. I travelled on it the other week, and for the first time ever on the afternoon service out of Helsby, it was a four car service ! Even more strange there were more passengers on it than normal. I also feel its a shame Ince & Elton doesn't get a regular service, quite a bit of housing there.

You could almost argue it as being worth extending Merseyrail to Ince and Elton then closing the rest. (I'm sure I heard you couldn't electrify to Helsby, which would be the best option, due to the risk posed to the refinery from all the third-rail arcing).

 

[pemma]

You could almost argue it as being worth extending Merseyrail to Ince and Elton then closing the rest. (I'm sure I heard you couldn't electrify to Helsby, which would be the best option, due to the risk posed to the refinery from all the third-rail arcing).

Why not use overhead electrics? I imagine at some point in the future Warrington Bank Quay to Chester will get overhead electrics. Alternatively an IPEMU.

 

[pemma]

Is a shame the shuttles are going, so you would have had six trains a day on the line. I travelled on it the other week, and for the first time ever on the afternoon service out of Helsby, it was a four car service ! Even more strange there were more passengers on it than normal. I also feel its a shame Ince & Elton doesn't get a regular service, quite a bit of housing there.

Do you remember what date that was? The afternoon services are booked as a 2 car 156 but there could have been some special event on e.g. Chester Races that meant Northern revised their diagramming.

 

[daikilo]

What is the demand like for Ince and Elton, Stanlow and Thornton, Ellesmere Port, Little Sutton and t'other one I forget towards Manchester?

Under the old service people from other Wirral Line stations would have gone that way, now they'd go via Chester.

Neil,

Stanlow is definitely an "inward demand" as access to the station is very difficult other than from the industrial site. Ince and Elton is mainly "outward" as both villages are residential. They are the only stations between Elesmere Port and Helsby and I cannot imagine any more being built actually on the line (some have suggested Cheshire Oaks retail Park as a branch from Elesmere Port).

As for demand from stations outside the above travelling over the line to get to other stations outside, I would expect it to be mainly done by car given the good motorway network, or by bus (e.g. Elesmere Port - Chester).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not use overhead electrics? I imagine at some point in the future Warrington Bank Quay to Chester will get overhead electrics. Alternatively an IPEMU.

I don't know if any electrification is an option?

An IPEMU would rather complicate the Merseyrail operation.

 

[frodshamfella]

You could almost argue it as being worth extending Merseyrail to Ince and Elton then closing the rest. (I'm sure I heard you couldn't electrify to Helsby, which would be the best option, due to the risk posed to the refinery from all the third-rail arcing).

The best option would be to extend to Helsby to allow onward connections. Im not sure arcing was over done, I was told it was not a problem when steam ran through there. You wouldn't want the rest closing beyond Ince as there is a new freight branch into a Glass Factory between Ince and Helsby.

 

[6Gman]

Some of us are old enough to remember when the oil trains out of Stanlow were largely hauled by 9Fs so not sure why passing electric trains should be a problem ...

 

[Cheshire Rover]

I don't know if any electrification is an option?

An IPEMU would rather complicate the Merseyrail operation.

There used to be a gas plant adjacent to the lines and Shell kicked up when Merseyrail wanted to electrify down to Helsby, hence why it stopped at Ellesmere Port. I understand this gas plant no longer exists..

 

[Bletchleyite]

There used to be a gas plant adjacent to the lines and Shell kicked up when Merseyrail wanted to electrify down to Helsby, hence why it stopped at Ellesmere Port. I understand this gas plant no longer exists..

In which case third rail to Helsby would solve most of the issues this little stub causes.

 

[frodshamfella]

In which case third rail to Helsby would solve most of the issues this little stub causes.

Yes and make it far more useful.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I have the link on the tabs on my phone to the part of Northern's site which lists any cancellations/disruptions/short formed trains etc, but is there any way of finding out what a particular service is normally formed of? If so, this could make travel more bearable as people would then know what workings are 2-car so that they can avoid them unless completely necessary. Obviously people usually have to stick to fixed trains if work-related, but particularly at weekends knowing one service is 2-car on such a line and the preceding/following service is 4-car might persuade everybody not to cram onto the 2-car service and defect to the preceding/following (4-car) service.

(I hope this won't be of relevance after May '18 in most of Northern land and that most services will be 4-car anyway )

 

[pemma]

Hale to Manchester - don't travel between 3pm and 7pm on a weekday if you want to be sure of getting a seat for the whole journey. Not that any information Northern give you will tell you that.

 

[158756]

(I hope this won't be of relevance after May '18 in most of Northern land and that most services will be 4-car anyway )

I wouldn't hold my breath. They're introducing several new or extended services and will have the Bolton line DMUs and a handful of cascaded trains. There won't be much left for strengthening. Given the number of units they will have I would expect 2 car trains to remain commonplace for the duration of the franchise, but most off peak services are fine anyway. Even some peak services on some lines are still managing with 2 cars.

 

[Olaf]

...
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 clearly not true.

There was a problem with the modelling which is used to predict demand and growth, but that I understand has long been addressed. The issue was that the model made assumptions about network topology that did not apply to mesh-networks and as a result underestimated demand in provincial centres, not just northern cities.

The trouble has been that patronage has not been at sufficiently high enough level on specific route sections to justify investment. The matter is complicated by the nature of the network with benefits of improvements being shared across multiple routes and frequently not achieving a critical mass around BCR.

By substantial improvement in efficiencies it is hoped that better returns on investment can be achieved, and thus having a more positive impact. The problem will not be resolved however until patronage is at a sufficiently high-enough level that the high levels of subsidy can be cut. There are specific sections where capacity is constrained and unable to service future projects, but they are (mostly) already being addressed.

What has not helped has been the false-hopes given by specific politicians, and the twisting of facts by activists for political means unrelated to serving either the travelling public or the tax payers.

 

[6Gman]

That is clearly not true.

That's never troubled PR1Berske in the past.

 

[Olaf]

That's never troubled PR1Berske in the past.

Yes, there are many that have an agenda, not of their own making.

 

[yorksrob]

That is clearly not true.

There was a problem with the modelling which is used to predict demand and growth, but that I understand has long been addressed. The issue was that the model made assumptions about network topology that did not apply to mesh-networks and as a result underestimated demand in provincial centres, not just northern cities.

The trouble has been that patronage has not been at sufficiently high enough level on specific route sections to justify investment. The matter is complicated by the nature of the network with benefits of improvements being shared across multiple routes and frequently not achieving a critical mass around BCR.

By substantial improvement in efficiencies it is hoped that better returns on investment can be achieved, and thus having a more positive impact. The problem will not be resolved however until patronage is at a sufficiently high-enough level that the high levels of subsidy can be cut. There are specific sections where capacity is constrained and unable to service future projects, but they are (mostly) already being addressed.

What has not helped has been the false-hopes given by specific politicians, and the twisting of facts by activists for political means unrelated to serving either the travelling public or the tax payers.

I'm reminded of the fiasco when a so called "business case" apparently couldn't be made to replace the clearly life expired and inadequate 142 fleet. Fortunately we had a very competent transport secretary at the time who managed to overrule this nonsense, however it convinced me of the folly of trying to plan investment in a public service such as the regional railway on a purely commercial basis.

 

[pemma]

I'm reminded of the fiasco when a so called "business case" apparently couldn't be made to replace the clearly life expired and inadequate 142 fleet. Fortunately we had a very competent transport secretary at the time who managed to overrule this nonsense, however it convinced me of the folly of trying to plan investment in a public service such as the regional railway on a purely commercial basis.

Philip Rutman used a flawed argument in that he said as passenger growth occurred while Northern were using Pacers that it shouldn't be presumed that replacing them with brand new trains would attract additional patronage.

Patrick McLoughlin was under pressure to overrule Rutman. John Pugh (who had been calling for Pacer replacement for years) convinced Nick Clegg that Pacer replacement was needed in the North and with Clegg being deputy PM (at the time) and Cameron and Osborne wanting to attract northern voters they agreed with Clegg. So when you have the PM, Deputy PM and Chancellor all in favour of Pacer replacement, it would be difficult for McLoughlin to say no.

 

[mpthomson]

Yes, agree with that. The answer is to shut Whitehall, sell off the offices for housing and disperse civil servants around the country. Sir Humphrey would love travelling to work on a Pacer.

A huge number of civil servants already have been dispersed over the country and a significant number work in places like Blackpool, Leeds, York and Manchester that are served by Pacers. Senior civil servants (and my ex-partner is one) need to be based in Whitehall or close by as that's where the ministers are, strangely enough. There are a lot of face to face briefings,meetings, appearances before parliamentary committees etc that simply would not be practical to do if the SCS cadre was based outside London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A huge number of civil servants already have been dispersed over the country and a significant number work in places like Blackpool, Leeds, York and Manchester that are served by Pacers. Senior civil servants (and my ex-partner is one) need to be based in Whitehall or close by as that's where the ministers are, strangely enough. There are a lot of face to face briefings,meetings, appearances before parliamentary committees etc that simply would not be practical to do if the SCS cadre was based outside London.

Yet some of us work 100% remotely on some projects. Teleconferences, collaboration and sharing tools etc. On one long-term project I work on, I have met my project manager once for 3 days, and that was after 2 years of working with him before which I had no idea what he looked like. (Sounds odd? Well, how many of you know what the radio presenters you listen to most look like?) Yet I speak to him at least daily on our 9am status call (this kind of meeting is essential for remote working, I find).

Perhaps the civil service needs to leave the 1900s where it does have a bad habit of sitting, and learn some new practices from the private sector.

Indeed, the fact that Government departments won't usually do that is a huge argument for privatisation generally. I'd rather they modernised, improved efficiency and stayed nationalised - but they won't.

 

[urbophile]

A huge number of civil servants already have been dispersed over the country and a significant number work in places like Blackpool, Leeds, York and Manchester that are served by Pacers. Senior civil servants (and my ex-partner is one) need to be based in Whitehall or close by as that's where the ministers are, strangely enough. There are a lot of face to face briefings,meetings, appearances before parliamentary committees etc that simply would not be practical to do if the SCS cadre was based outside London.

One of the justifications for a high-speed intercity network is that London and other cities are in easy reach of each other. Many people in the commercial and NGO sectors live, and do most of their work, in one city while easily managing to get to London once or twice a week for such meetings. It won't be appropriate in every situation, granted, but a senior civil servant based in Liverpool, Manchester or maybe Middlesbrough will be better able to understand the implications of government policy for the regions. As of course a local MP would, but few of the present government (unsurprisingly) represent constituencies in the north, least of all urban ones.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

You could almost argue it as being worth extending Merseyrail to Ince and Elton then closing the rest. (I'm sure I heard you couldn't electrify to Helsby, which would be the best option, due to the risk posed to the refinery from all the third-rail arcing).

Stanlow refinery is between Ince & Elton and Ellesmere Port. There are no refineries between Ince & Elton & Helsby.

The Daniel Adamson steamship has done regular trips this summer up and down the Manchester Ship Canal which is as close to the refinery as the Ellesmere Port - Helsby line. Indeed I sailed on it for a rare working from Acton Bridge down the Weaver Navigation through Dutton and Marsh Locks to the MSC and Ellesmere Port Boat Museum.

All of which makes me suspect that the dangers from passing electric trains are exaggerated.

Having said that, there is talk of adapting the new Merseyrail Electric trains to include some form of electrical self-powering to allow them to run to places like Wrexham and Warrington. Helsby could be added to the list of possible destinations if the will was there.

 

[Greybeard33]

The trouble has been that patronage has not been at sufficiently high enough level on specific route sections to justify investment. The matter is complicated by the nature of the network with benefits of improvements being shared across multiple routes and frequently not achieving a critical mass around BCR.

By substantial improvement in efficiencies it is hoped that better returns on investment can be achieved, and thus having a more positive impact. The problem will not be resolved however until patronage is at a sufficiently high-enough level that the high levels of subsidy can be cut. There are specific sections where capacity is constrained and unable to service future projects, but they are (mostly) already being addressed.

Is this not a "chicken and egg" problem? Cuts in the high level of subsidy are dependent on an increase in patronage. A sufficiently large increase in patronage requires investment in upgrading the infrastructure to improve journey times, service frequencies and platform lengths, so as to make the offering sufficiently more attractive to the potential new rail users. But this investment cannot be justified because of the high level of subsidy....

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa...."

 

[6Gman]

Is this not a "chicken and egg" problem? Cuts in the high level of subsidy are dependent on an increase in patronage. A sufficiently large increase in patronage requires investment in upgrading the infrastructure to improve journey times, service frequencies and platform lengths, so as to make the offering sufficiently more attractive to the potential new rail users. But this investment cannot be justified because of the high level of subsidy....

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa...."

Shouldn't really be that difficult. Would the increased income be more or less than the cost of servicing the investment? If more, subsidy would fall; if less, subsidy would rise. Not an exact science but should be possible.

 

[Olaf]

I'm reminded of the fiasco when a so called "business case" apparently couldn't be made to replace the clearly life expired and inadequate 142 fleet. Fortunately we had a very competent transport secretary at the time who managed to overrule this nonsense, however it convinced me of the folly of trying to plan investment in a public service such as the regional railway on a purely commercial basis.

I don't think that a business case has been made for their premature replacement.

It may have seemed a good decision, but many of the issues have not been resolved, and will be left to TfN to find funding for.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think that a business case has been made for their premature replacement.

It may have seemed a good decision, but many of the issues have not been resolved, and will be left to TfN to find funding for.

Premature how exactly ? They'll be getting on for forty years old by the time they're replaced as it is, which is acknowledged as the older end of the spectrum of an EMU, let alone a sub-standard DMU.

 

[pemma]

I don't think that a business case has been made for their premature replacement.

It may have seemed a good decision, but many of the issues have not been resolved, and will be left to TfN to find funding for.

If Pacers get the PRM mods they become approx 80 seater trains but become more expensive to lease. How does the cost of running 1 x PRM modified 156 compare to the cost of operating 2 x PRM modified 142s running in multiple? Unless it's roughly the same or only slightly more for the 2 x 142s how is there a business case for continuing to use Pacers in the North?

Is there a business case for Anglia acquiring new bi-mode trains to replace Sprinters on rural Norfolk lines, especially when there were 5 x off-lease 156s available to bidders? Or does business case only matter when the lesser used lines aren't in the same franchise as well utilised long distance services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect Stadler gave them a VERY good deal as a means of breaking into the UK market. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a loss leader.