Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[StretfordEnd96]

But how would looping the stoppers at Stalybridge improve punctuality or reliability? All three Task Force options have the two stoppers peeling off to Piccadilly at Stalybridge, so getting out of the way of the following fasts that go to Victoria.

If a stopper is delayed, the fast will catch it up before Stalybridge regardless.

Whether they peel off at Stalybridge or not, to me it still seems extremely tight - to have 2tph stopping at Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite (and one continuing to Hull after Huddersfield) along with the 4 fasts just seems very optimistic - but I'm no expert..!

Southport = A minority of passengers having to change trains, for the people bound for Oxford Road

Stalybridge = 6 minutes added to every single passenger journey across Stalybridge on those trains

When the local stopper between Manchester - Huddersfield ran from Victoria, I always remember Huddersfield bound journeys often included a 5 minute (give or take) wait close to Stalybridge - but thus is the nature of local stoppers on otherwise extremely busy fast lines I guess.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

6 trains over the Huddersfield line requires everything running exactly to time which is why they gave up last time.

This time they clearly expect it to work better, if the performance is made to improve much better.

 

[PTR 444]

Just seen the timetable options and can safely say that option C is by far my favourite of all. I think consolidating routes into corridors with 2tph clockface on each will be very beneficial for onward connections and reducing conflicts, even if it means there is no longer a service from “everywhere to everywhere”. I’ve always been very fond of the Takt idea and I hope this can be achieved in a way that enables journeys requiring a change to be as quick as they would be with a direct end to end service.

As with any option, there will be winners and losers, so I thought I’d do a summary on the proposed option C routes. I know some points have already been mentioned but I share some similar views so might as well list them here:

Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport
I am all for increasing the frequency of local services on the Styal Line while strengthening the link between Crewe and Manchester Airport, but it is a shame that this particular option comes at the expense of direct Crewe - Stockport stopping services. It would be better to have 1tph terminate at Alderley Edge while extending one of the Stockport stoppers to Crewe in its place.

Mid-Cheshire Line
I am totally in favour of adding a second semi-fast train to the line, but can understand that this will cause a lot of frustration to people in North Wales who would have a slower journey time to Manchester Piccadilly. Even with two fewer stops proposed than the current routing, it would still be slower due to the lower speed limit on the Mid-Cheshire. I wonder if it would be worth looking into increasing the limit as distance wise it is only 5 extra miles to Piccadilly from Chester compared to going via Warrington BQ. As for direct connectivity to Manchester Airport, Welsh passengers will be inconvenienced by the loss of a direct train, but Altrincham would be reached quicker from Chester than the Airport on the current route and could be used as a railhead, with frequent shuttle buses accepting tickets to the airport. The only other option for the TfW route would be to send it into Victoria replacing one of the Northern Calder Valley services from Chester, in which case a Northern semi-fast could operate on the Mid-Cheshire between Piccadilly and Chester only.

Alderley Edge via Stockport
As mentioned above, Stockport - Crewe is going to lose out big time from this. it would be much better to extend 1tph to Crewe in lieu of 1tph from the Styal Line.

Buxton Line
Same as now but without Hazel Grove terminators. The line from there to Stockport will now have an electrified section for no apparent reason, not that I oppose but it might look odd to some.

TPE services via Guide Bridge
Good idea to keep the long distance TPE services running that way, but I wonder if the Huddersfield stopper would be better off going to Victoria via Ashton. The bay platforms at Vic will remain empty under this proposal so you might as well give them some use. Would also free up space at Piccadilly for East Manchester locals.

Liverpool - Victoria - Leeds (TPE)
The most vital part of the North Transpennine corridor, so makes perfect sense to keep it as it is.

Airport - Victoria - Leeds (TPE)
Same as above, and I agree that the Ordsall Chord should still get some use even if it is an operational convenience to some.

Airport - Bolton - Blackpool
The most sensible thing to do IMHO. Strengthens an existing passenger flow while remaining under wires the whole way. Even so, I’m not sure that both tph need to call at Lostock, Blackrod and Adlington. They are sizeable settlements but will slow down the prime Blackpool services. 1tph skipping these would be better to maintain the current Blackpool - Manchester timings.

Airport - Bolton - Cumbria/Scotland
Alongside the Blackpool services, this will provide a corridor 4tph between M’c’r Airport and Preston, a sensible thing to do. Wigan North Western loses out on direct services to Manchester but people can use frequent services from Wallgate instead.

Liverpool - Piccadilly - Sheffield
I really like the idea of running the Cleethorpes and Nottingham services at 30 minute clockface intervals. With the CLC local east of Warrington reduced to 1tph, I would like to think that these two services can provide a skip-stop pattern between alternating stations. Also, I think both services should be operated by EMR as it would allow crew to interwork the two routes.

Liverpool - Manchester via Chat Moss
It is a shame that this cannot be extended to the airport but is a fair compromise as one can easily change at Oxford Road. The main thing is that the local stations on the line maintain their direct link between each other.

Liverpool - Manchester via CLC
Feel a bit sorry for this service, being halved in frequency and curtailed to run between Warrington and Oxford Road only. I guess it had to happen with the other Oxford Road service going via Chat Moss. At least Warrington - Liverpool remains 2tph.

Chester - Victoria - Leeds
A good improvement from 1tph on the existing service, but the big question is whether one of these paths would be better off allocated to the TfW service from North Wales. As mentioned upthread, a handful of people from there will not be happy with a longer journey time to Manchester City Centre, so it may be worth looking at routing it to Victoria instead. In this case you might as well extend it to Leeds as a continuation of the second Chester path. Terminating it at Victoria is another option but would mean reversing in platforms 3&4, and you’d need another Calder Valley service to maintain 2tph between Manchester and Bradford. Also I quite like the idea of having another operator serving the Calder Valley Line, even if TfW may look out of place in Yorkshire.

Kirkby/Wigan - Victoria - Blackburn/Leeds
Good idea. Keeps DMUs off electrified routes as much as possible.

Southport - Victoria - Stalybridge
Again, another good idea. I think it is a fair compromise to keep it off the Castlefield corridor in order to maintain a clockface frequency while keeping DMUs away from wires.

Clitheroe/Blackburn - Victoria - Rochdale
Similar to what exists now but with additional calls between Bolton and Salford Crescent. These will increase journey times which I am sure will inconvenience some people, but should hopefully improve the quality of service for passengers at those stations. Not a bad idea overall.

 

[Greybeard33]

6 trains over the Huddersfield line requires everything running exactly to time which is why they gave up last time.

TPE has not "given up" on 6tph between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. The fast services have been temporarily reduced from 4tph to 2tph because of the pandemic. The main reason for the delays on the Huddersfield line was the congestion in central Manchester, which the Task Force options address.

TPE services via Guide Bridge
Good idea to keep the long distance TPE services running that way, but I wonder if the Huddersfield stopper would be better off going to Victoria via Ashton. The bay platforms at Vic will remain empty under this proposal so you might as well give them some use. Would also free up space at Piccadilly for East Manchester locals.

As discussed upthread, if the Huddersfield stopper went to Victoria it would have to wait 6 minutes at Stalybridge for a fast to overtake, assuming the fasts remain on an even 15 minute frequency. And it is better for users of Mossley, Greenfield etc to have both their trains from Piccadilly rather than alternating between Pic and Vic.

Chester - Victoria - Leeds
A good improvement from 1tph on the existing service, but the big question is whether one of these paths would be better off allocated to the TfW service from North Wales. As mentioned upthread, a handful of people from there will not be happy with a longer journey time to Manchester City Centre, so it may be worth looking at routing it to Victoria instead. In this case you might as well extend it to Leeds as a continuation of the second Chester path. Terminating it at Victoria is another option but would mean reversing in platforms 3&4, and you’d need another Calder Valley service to maintain 2tph between Manchester and Bradford. Also I quite like the idea of having another operator serving the Calder Valley Line, even if TfW may look out of place in Yorkshire.

I think it is out of scope to consider TfW to Yorkshire (or Northern to Llandudno) in these changes, because of the amount of crew training and rolling stock swaps that would be needed. The realistic option is TfW to Stalybridge, as in Option A. But, as discussed upthread, the constraints would then probably rule out an even 30 minute frequency between Chester and Victoria.

Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport
I am all for increasing the frequency of local services on the Styal Line while strengthening the link between Crewe and Manchester Airport, but it is a shame that this particular option comes at the expense of direct Crewe - Stockport stopping services. It would be better to have 1tph terminate at Alderley Edge while extending one of the Stockport stoppers to Crewe in its place.

Although not explicit in the document, I think Chelford and Goostrey will gain a doubling in frequency from Option C (currently the Airport service skips those stations), while Holmes Chapel and Sandbach will have a regular 30 minute frequency instead of the current irregular service. Users of those four stations will be able to change at WiImslow on to a 4tph service to Stockport (including Avanti and TfW), so should not be badly inconvenienced.

 

[Purple Orange]

Excellent summary and I agree that option C is the best. However as a frequent commuter on the Crewe-Picc via Stockport line, the loss of the stopper between Crewe & Stockport is not a big deal.

 

[PTR 444]

As discussed upthread, if the Huddersfield stopper went to Victoria it would have to wait 6 minutes at Stalybridge for a fast to overtake, assuming the fasts remain on an even 15 minute frequency. And it is better for users of Mossley, Greenfield etc to have both their trains from Piccadilly rather than alternating between Pic and Vic.

Forgot that the above calls are being added to the Hull service, in which on second thoughts it’s better to have both “Huddersfield locals” go to Piccadilly. Still, I do think it is a shame though that Hull passengers will now have a much longer journey time to Manchester. Personally I would have curtailed the TPE Scarborough service at Leeds and extended the Hull service through to Liverpool in its place, then the Manc’r Piccadilly - Huddersfield local could operate as a self-contained 2tph shuttle with no extensions beyond.

 

[Glenn1969]

I would divert either the Hull or Scarborough service via the Calder Valley. It could be via Dewsbury and Brighouse if you want to avoid the time penalty incurred by going via Bradford.

 

[TheSel]

Liverpool - Manchester via CLC
Feel a bit sorry for this service, being halved in frequency and curtailed to run between Warrington and Oxford Road only. I guess it had to happen with the other Oxford Road service going via Chat Moss. At least Warrington - Liverpool remains 2tph.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the effect on the stations between Warrington and Hunts Cross?

I don't see any proposal for services at Halewood, Hough Green, Widnes, Sankey or the recently opened (at significant cost) Warrington West. Would the 'fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham or the 'semi fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Cleethorpes be somewhat less 'fast' west of Warrington to serve these stations? And unless these two had the same (or equivalent 'skipping') stopping pattern west of Warrington, wouldn't that mean that the service either east or west of Warrington would have to shift from 'clock-face' due to different Liverpool - Warrington timings?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the effect on the stations between Warrington and Hunts Cross?

I don't see any proposal for services at Halewood, Hough Green, Widnes, Sankey or the recently opened (at significant cost) Warrington West. Would the 'fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham or the 'semi fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Cleethorpes be somewhat less 'fast' west of Warrington to serve these stations? And unless these two had the same (or equivalent 'skipping') stopping pattern west of Warrington, wouldn't that mean that the service either east or west of Warrington would have to shift from 'clock-face' due to different Liverpool - Warrington timings?

Doesn't the Nottingham/Norwich already serve Widnes? It always used to - that did Widnes, and the TPE did Birchwood, though the peak services tended to do both.

Sankey now has a peak-only service, I could see it closing unless electrification could save it by reducing the time penalty of serving it on the stoppers.

 

[TheSel]

Doesn't the Nottingham/Norwich already serve Widnes? It always used to - that did Widnes, and the TPE did Birchwood, though the peak services tended to do both.

Sankey now has a peak-only service, I could see it closing unless electrification could save it by reducing the time penalty of serving it on the stoppers.

Re Widnes - under "normal" circumstances (anyone remember those?!), yes. But that's not really answering the question.

If the Nottinghams were to continue to service Widnes, would the "new" Cleethorpes? Yes - fine, but still leaves the other stations I mentioned. No - then you create the 'off-clock-face' issue I raised.

And the question of closing Sankey (or not) isn't part of the consultation. Or is it? More 'closure by stealth', perhaps?

 

[LowLevel]

Doesn't the Nottingham/Norwich already serve Widnes? It always used to - that did Widnes, and the TPE did Birchwood, though the peak services tended to do both.

Sankey now has a peak-only service, I could see it closing unless electrification could save it by reducing the time penalty of serving it on the stoppers.

EMR train standard pattern is Lime St - South Parkway - Widnes - Warrington - Oxford Road

Northern fast when it runs is Lime St - South Parkway - Warrington - Birchwood - Oxford Road.

EMR has peak additional calls at Irlam x 1 Down PM, Birchwood x 1 Down PM, x 2 Up AM, Hough Green x 1 Down AM, Hunts Cross x 1 Up AM, x 1 Down AM, x 1 Down PM (Down is to Liverpool, up from).

Not sure what the extra calls on Northern are anymore, when it was TPE they had one up stop at Widnes in the morning.

Sankey was due to close but instead has a sulky service due to protests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sankey was due to close but instead has a sulky service due to protests.

Given that it serves a rather different area from Warrington West (they are no closer together than your average pair of Merseyrail stations, particularly on the Wirral) I don't support its closure. Operating the Liverpool end stopping service with Class 195s would surely provide enough timetable slack to keep it at least hourly. Though long-term there might be an argument to say that as Penketh expands west into farmland that it might then make sense to replace it with a Penketh station about 1km further west, as it's Penketh, not Sankey, that would suffer most from its closure, as the present Sankey station is within reasonable walking distance of most of Penketh but Warrington West isn't.

Of course the Liverpool end stopping service doesn't get much mention as it doesn't run onto Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the effect on the stations between Warrington and Hunts Cross?

I don't see any proposal for services at Halewood, Hough Green, Widnes, Sankey or the recently opened (at significant cost) Warrington West. Would the 'fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham or the 'semi fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Cleethorpes be somewhat less 'fast' west of Warrington to serve these stations? And unless these two had the same (or equivalent 'skipping') stopping pattern west of Warrington, wouldn't that mean that the service either east or west of Warrington would have to shift from 'clock-face' due to different Liverpool - Warrington timings?

Re Widnes - under "normal" circumstances (anyone remember those?!), yes. But that's not really answering the question.

If the Nottinghams were to continue to service Widnes, would the "new" Cleethorpes? Yes - fine, but still leaves the other stations I mentioned. No - then you create the 'off-clock-face' issue I raised.

And the question of closing Sankey (or not) isn't part of the consultation. Or is it? More 'closure by stealth', perhaps?

I think there are lots of permutations and choices possible of what could stop where on the CLC. That's not really the point of this consultation, more the general level of service on the corridor as determined by central Manchester capacity.

Once a preferred option is chosen and developed, plenty of opportunity to refine stopping patterns after that.

 

[craigybagel]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's the effect on the stations between Warrington and Hunts Cross?

I don't see any proposal for services at Halewood, Hough Green, Widnes, Sankey or the recently opened (at significant cost) Warrington West. Would the 'fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham or the 'semi fast' Liverpool - Sheffield - Cleethorpes be somewhat less 'fast' west of Warrington to serve these stations? And unless these two had the same (or equivalent 'skipping') stopping pattern west of Warrington, wouldn't that mean that the service either east or west of Warrington would have to shift from 'clock-face' due to different Liverpool - Warrington timings?

There would be an hourly Liverpool - Warrington all stops service for those stations, plus the busier of them would have calls by one or other of the express services to give 2tph.

 

[daodao]

There would be an hourly Liverpool - Warrington all stops service for those stations, plus the busier of them would have calls by one or other of the express services to give 2tph.

The document states on page 22 that options B and C would have 2 trains per hour between Liverpool and Warrington Central calling at all stations. It is only between Warrington Central and Manchester Oxford Road that the off-peak stopping service would be reduced to hourly. This is better than the current 2 hourly service at some of the smaller stations, but in my view insufficient for the stations within Greater Manchester from Irlam eastwards, on the principle that suburban stations really need a 30 minute daytime frequency to be really useful and offer an attractive alternative to bus services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The document states on page 22 that options B and C would have 2 trains per hour between Liverpool and Warrington Central calling at all stations. It is only between Warrington Central and Manchester Oxford Road that the off-peak stopping service would be reduced to hourly. This is better than the current 2 hourly service at some of the smaller stations, but in my view insufficient for the stations within Greater Manchester from Irlam eastwards, on the principle that suburban stations really need a 30 minute daytime frequency to be really useful and offer an attractive alternative to bus services.

I guess you'd have to remove another service from Castlefield to allow a second TPH there, though. Is there an obvious option?

 

[Glenn1969]

Thought they were proposing calls by the semi fast services at all of Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood. Do the other stations need 2tph?

 

[peters]

This is better than the current 2 hourly service at some of the smaller stations, but in my view insufficient for the stations within Greater Manchester from Irlam eastwards, on the principle that suburban stations really need a 30 minute daytime frequency to be really useful and offer an attractive alternative to bus services.

Don't TfGM have a target of 2 trains per hour at stations with annual usage over 250,000? If so Irlam and Urmston meet that criteria but Flixton and Padgate miss out. Padgate is in Warrington so isn't automatically included in any TfGM aspiration anyway.

I think they also have an aspiration of 4 trains per hour at stations with usage over 500,000 so Birchwood would be a service short using that aspiration but again it's Warrington, not Greater Manchester and it wouldn't actually lose a service under the plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thought they were proposing calls by the semi fast services at all of Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood. Do the other stations need 2tph?

If you want to get decent usage of a suburban line hourly isn't really good enough. Half hourly is the least you really need to go for, ideally 4 or more TPH even at quiet stations (Chassen Road is not really any different from e.g. Aughton Park). That said, until NPR there are trade-offs - the local stations between Bolton and Manchester are similar.

 

[Greybeard33]

If you want to get decent usage of a suburban line hourly isn't really good enough. Half hourly is the least you really need to go for, ideally 4 or more TPH even at quiet stations (Chassen Road is not really any different from e.g. Aughton Park). That said, until NPR there are trade-offs - the local stations between Bolton and Manchester are similar.

We should remember that a groundrule for the Task Force was no infrastructure enhancements. But a central turnback at Oxford Road would likely allow an all day 2tph frequency for the Option B & C Warrington Central - Oxford Road stoppers, without cutting any other services through the corridor.

The Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report proposed this enhancement as a no-brainer. The cost should be modest and it ought to be possible to complete it soon after the 2022 timeframe of the timetable recast.

No need to wait for NPR!

Meanwhile an hourly frequency would be double what Trafford Park, Humphrey Park, Chassen Road, Flixton and Glazebrook have in the baseline timetable.

 

[TheSel]

There would be an hourly Liverpool - Warrington all stops service for those stations, plus the busier of them would have calls by one or other of the express services to give 2tph.

The document states on page 22 that options B and C would have 2 trains per hour between Liverpool and Warrington Central calling at all stations. It is only between Warrington Central and Manchester Oxford Road that the off-peak stopping service would be reduced to hourly. This is better than the current 2 hourly service at some of the smaller stations, but in my view insufficient for the stations within Greater Manchester from Irlam eastwards, on the principle that suburban stations really need a 30 minute daytime frequency to be really useful and offer an attractive alternative to bus services.

Thanks, folks - I must have missed that bit. Much appreciated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We should remember that a groundrule for the Task Force was no infrastructure enhancements. But a central turnback at Oxford Road would likely allow an all day 2tph frequency for the Option B & C Warrington Central - Oxford Road stoppers, without cutting any other services through the corridor.

The Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report proposed this enhancement as a no-brainer. The cost should be modest and it ought to be possible to complete it soon after the 2022 timeframe of the timetable recast.

I believe it'd require one crossover, from comments upthread, to use Platform 3 for that? Dead cheap (in railway terms) and doable in a weekend.

Meanwhile an hourly frequency would be double what Trafford Park, Humphrey Park, Chassen Road, Flixton and Glazebrook have in the baseline timetable.

Glazebrook is probably neither here nor there as it's in the middle of a field (though might be useful for west Cadishead if a footpath/cycleway and bridge were put in place), but I agree that the other three need a proper urban service which means 2tph at least. Might help with regenerating the former two as they aren't exactly nice areas and could do with a boost.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe it'd require one crossover, from comments upthread, to use Platform 3 for that? Dead cheap (in railway terms) and doable in a weekend.

Depends whether you also need to do station changes to avoid passenger flow being messed up too. Also would require trains be able to fit without going past the current mid-platform signal.

Plus all the OLE etc changes required would probably need more than a weekend.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Depends whether you also need to do station changes to avoid passenger flow being messed up too. Also would require trains be able to fit without going past the current mid-platform signal.

Plus all the OLE etc changes required would probably need more than a weekend.

I am relatively sure that the turnback described is the one whereby you have two through lines each way flanking a central bay platform, requiring a massive rebuild of Oxford Road (although it is accepted that Oxford Road will need to be rebuilt).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends whether you also need to do station changes to avoid passenger flow being messed up too. Also would require trains be able to fit without going past the current mid-platform signal.

Can't see the stopper needing to be more than 2-car, so it might well do? Class 150 if you need to shave 6m off?

Plus all the OLE etc changes required would probably need more than a weekend.

Fair point.

I am relatively sure that the turnback described is the one whereby you have two through lines each way flanking a central bay platform, requiring a massive rebuild of Oxford Road (although it is accepted that Oxford Road will need to be rebuilt).

That's the ideal, of course.

 

[craigybagel]

The document states on page 22 that options B and C would have 2 trains per hour between Liverpool and Warrington Central calling at all stations. It is only between Warrington Central and Manchester Oxford Road that the off-peak stopping service would be reduced to hourly. This is better than the current 2 hourly service at some of the smaller stations, but in my view insufficient for the stations within Greater Manchester from Irlam eastwards, on the principle that suburban stations really need a 30 minute daytime frequency to be really useful and offer an attractive alternative to bus services.

Indeed it does, but earlier on page 15 it states

• Stopping trains on the line from Warrington Central are split at
Warrington rather than running through from Liverpool, and run at
only one per hour off-peak, calling at all stations. This offers an
improved pattern for most stations rather than the present pattern of
alternate hours at some smaller stations. The two Liverpool-Sheffield
services would call at the larger intermediate stations such as
Birchwood, Irlam and Urmston

Implying the Liverpool - Warrington service would also only be hourly. I do agree with you though that both the Liverpool - Warrington and Warrington - Manchester services should be half hourly, and with the express services also being half hourly it shouldn't be too hard to flight them behind. I'm not sure if there's space in Oxford Road for a half hourly service turning back though, especially as the Chat Moss stopper is also down to turn back there.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Thought they were proposing calls by the semi fast services at all of Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood. Do the other stations need 2tph?

The Liverpool - Cleethorpes would become a more semi-fest with the calls at Urmston and Irlam. The Liverpool - Nottingham/Norwich would retain its current stopping pattern looking at the proposals. I recall seeing that Liverpool to Warrington would remain 2 TPH and Warrington to Manchester would be 1 TPH.

 

[Greybeard33]

I am relatively sure that the turnback described is the one whereby you have two through lines each way flanking a central bay platform, requiring a massive rebuild of Oxford Road (although it is accepted that Oxford Road will need to be rebuilt).

Surely it just needs a crossover at the west end of Platform 3 and a buffer stop at the east end (to negate the signal overlap issue that currently prevents use of the full length of the platform). Platforms 2 & 4 become the through roads and 1 & 5 remain available for emergency use.

Hardly a massive rebuild.

 

[tbtc]

I think there are lots of permutations and choices possible of what could stop where on the CLC. That's not really the point of this consultation, more the general level of service on the corridor as determined by central Manchester capacity.

Once a preferred option is chosen and developed, plenty of opportunity to refine stopping patterns after that.

Thought they were proposing calls by the semi fast services at all of Urmston, Irlam and Birchwood. Do the other stations need 2tph?

re the Warrington - Manchester stopper - it would be possible to have it serving some additional stops in the peak flow, e.g. an hourly service towards Manchester in the morning and bi-hourly towards Warrington (since, let's face it, Warrington is the smaller market), but then an hourly service towards Warrington in the afternoon with a bi-hourly service into Manchester in the afternoon (so that the diagram length and Oxford Road dwell times remain the same, but you give stations additional calls in the "busy" direction)

We should remember that a groundrule for the Task Force was no infrastructure enhancements

I think this point has been missed by a few people, who've see "a pragmatic plan aiming to cope with the finite number of paths and tailoring a timetable to what is realistic" and though "hey, all we need to do is build two additional platforms at Piccadilly, rebuild Oxford Road, add in a few additional bits of electrification elsewhere, re-model Stalybridge..."

Can't see the stopper needing to be more than 2-car, so it might well do? Class 150 if you need to shave 6m off?

This is the same bay that'll need to accommodate the hourly Liverpool stopper via Chat Moss (i.e a 3x23m 323)?

Building anything for the bare minimum shortest train seems an amazingly short sighted thing, given that there's no guarantee that any service with a two coach 150 on it today won't have a 156/195 (etc) on it tomorrow - and that's assuming that a two coach diagram will only ever get a two coach train on it.

 

[Ianno87]

I am relatively sure that the turnback described is the one whereby you have two through lines each way flanking a central bay platform, requiring a massive rebuild of Oxford Road (although it is accepted that Oxford Road will need to be rebuilt).

Surely it just needs a crossover at the west end of Platform 3 and a buffer stop at the east end (to negate the signal overlap issue that currently prevents use of the full length of the platform). Platforms 2 & 4 become the through roads and 1 & 5 remain available for emergency use.

Hardly a massive rebuild.

You also don't want to put in a crossover straight off the platform end that sits in the overlap of the Platform 2 starter signal. Which would mean that a train approaching from Piccadilly would have to be held outside the station whilst a train departs Platform 3.

Suddenly, it isn't so simple...