Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The Manchester Recovery Taskforce plan effects the whole of the region. It looks like Hull services are the poor relation. I find it strange why there is no Liverpool to Hull fast service to offer an alternative to the M62?

Is there actually demand for that? The M62 is of course not only used for Liverpool to Hull journeys, but a load of overlapping intermediate trips.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HST43257

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
737
Location
York
Is there any case where 2tph Leeds to Chester via Calder Valley and Warrington could extend to Llandudno? Means 2tph from the Calder Valley west of Manchester, as planned, as well as no silly Mid-Cheshire line TfW ’service’
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is there any case where 2tph Leeds to Chester via Calder Valley and Warrington could extend to Llandudno? Means 2tph from the Calder Valley west of Manchester, as planned, as well as no silly Mid-Cheshire line TfW ’service’

It's a real pity TfW had to be split off in what was basically a purely political move. The old FNW area including North Wales was far more representative of the journeys people actually made and how bits of Wales associate to their adjacent bit of England, and would have rendered that possible (and indeed North Wales to "TPE" has existed as through services at various points in the past). Wales is nothing like Scotland in terms of the patterns of how people live and work, it's closely entwined with the nearby bits of England.
 

unlevel42

Member
Joined
5 May 2011
Messages
394
Please can Sheffield people trade their hourly direct link to Manchester Airport with half hourly stops at Hazel Grove.

A bus/taxi direct to the airport from Hazel Grove would be faster and more convenient than any train(direct or not).

Faster journey time between Sheffield station and Airport terminals particularly 1 and 3.
The AA says it takes 16 mins to cover the 8.4 miles from Hazel Grove station to Terminal 1.
Drop off at terminals rather than bus/coach/tram/train terminal.
Using the A555 would avoid all the congestion on the motorways and A6.
No time penalty incurred by other passengers by stopping at Hazel Grove(benefit of option B and C)
Drop off and pick up 10m from the 'to Sheffield platform(2)'*, lift and stepped ramp on the
'from Sheffield platform(1)'.

*Could all Buxton and terminating traffic to used platform 1, all to/from Sheffield traffic to could use platform 2?
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
3,651
Where would the other half of the proposed Liverpool - Cleethorpes service go? It's probably impractical to stop it at Stockport. Carry on as now to the Airport? Suits me. I go to Liverpool more often than the Airport and am happy to change for either if necessary - but are there still paths to the Airport and a platform available on arrival if we're trying to clear congested corridors?

Is there platform space for a permanently terminating Cleethorpes service at Piccadilly after all these changes ?
I don't know the answers to your questions on whether there would be platform space, but yes the 'other half' I think would be directed down the airport line. It seems sensible to try and keep routes seperate and avoid crossing each other on the flat, with a few exceptions to maintain through links where there are major flows. Obviously there may be issues with platform space and pathing given the interfaces most services will have with others elsewhere, but that means virtually everything through platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly running to either Manchester Airport or Styal (and beyond) and zero services between the Airport/Styal and Piccadilly platforms 1-12. For Castlefield, the only obvious 'major flow' that needs an exception is 1tph between Liverpool and Sheffield (I'm probably quite clueless as to what the main flows are, so from my point of view I don't care if this carries to to Nottingham/Grantham/Norwich or to Cleethorpes). Is there any other reason for Castlefield to have services towards Stockport?

Is there any case where 2tph Leeds to Chester via Calder Valley and Warrington could extend to Llandudno? Means 2tph from the Calder Valley west of Manchester, as planned, as well as no silly Mid-Cheshire line TfW ’service’
This is the sort of thing I was getting at by saying "in a world without franchise silo-ing" earlier. To avoid crossing moves, the right thing to do with most services from Chat Moss is to route them through platforms 3/4 at Manchester Victoria an on towards Ashton-under-Lyne/Stalybridge. However, in an ideal world I think the TfW service should be a fast from Bangor (Caernarfon) or Holyhead to Hull, Scarborough or Saltburn replacing one of the TPEs east of Manchester Victoria.

Please can Sheffield people trade their hourly direct link to Manchester Airport with half hourly stops at Hazel Grove.

A bus/taxi direct to the airport from Hazel Grove would be faster and more convenient than any train(direct or not).

Faster journey time between Sheffield station and Airport terminals particularly 1 and 3.
The AA says it takes 16 mins to cover the 8.4 miles from Hazel Grove station to Terminal 1.
Drop off at terminals rather than bus/coach/tram/train terminal.
Using the A555 would avoid all the congestion on the motorways and A6.
No time penalty incurred by other passengers by stopping at Hazel Grove(benefit of option B and C)
Drop off and pick up 10m from the 'to Sheffield platform(2)'*, lift and stepped ramp on the
'from Sheffield platform(1)'.

*Could all Buxton and terminating traffic to used platform 1, all to/from Sheffield traffic to could use platform 2?
Stockport is closer (as the crow flies at least) to Manchester Airport than Hazel Grove is; wouldn't a bus/taxi direct to the airport from Stockport be faster (and not slow down passengers between Sheffield and central Manchester by adding stops)?
 

wobman

On Moderation
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
279
It's a real pity TfW had to be split off in what was basically a purely political move. The old FNW area including North Wales was far more representative of the journeys people actually made and how bits of Wales associate to their adjacent bit of England, and would have rendered that possible (and indeed North Wales to "TPE" has existed as through services at various points in the past). Wales is nothing like Scotland in terms of the patterns of how people live and work, it's closely entwined with the nearby bits of England.
TFW do run a lot of present cross border services & have plans to improve services in the future. The problem I see with moving services to northern or tpe is that they are struggling with what they have now & giving them more would only make the situation far worse.
Opening the Halton curve has been a great success & TFW plan Cardiff to Liverpool services via Runcorn, plus other increases in services which will give the N Wales & borders passengers more options.

With devolution the Welsh government would obviously want more control over the franchise, taking it even more in house are the future plans of the new TFW ltd taking it over from keolis Amey.

I hope the politicians are made more accountable with the franchise being govt ran, instead of the English TOCs ran by faceless civil servants running the DFT.
this like anything will have downsides but let's give TFW a chance instead of doing it down. We do tend to look at the past through rose tinted glasses I find FNW had a lot of issues that we tend to forget.
 

unlevel42

Member
Joined
5 May 2011
Messages
394
...


Stockport is closer (as the crow flies at least) to Manchester Airport than Hazel Grove is; wouldn't a bus/taxi direct to the airport from Stockport be faster (and not slow down passengers between Sheffield and central Manchester by adding stops)?
The AA says it takes 16 mins to cover the 8.4 miles from Hazel Grove station to Terminal 1.
The AA says it takes 15 mins to cover the 7.9 miles from Stockport station to Terminal 1 Via M60 and M56

Stockport is 0.5 miles and a minute closer.
But:
Add on the 8 minutes train journey time from Hazel Grove to Stockport.
Add on the X minutes and difficulty of getting from the platforms at Stockport to the taxi or minicab rank.
Add on the X minutes for congestion on the A6 in Stockport, motorway junctions, on the motorways and on the airport approach.

As important is the 10m level access to or ramp/lift to the platforms at Hazel Grove.
 

Watershed

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
846
Location
UK
This is the sort of thing I was getting at by saying "in a world without franchise silo-ing" earlier. To avoid crossing moves, the right thing to do with most services from Chat Moss is to route them through platforms 3/4 at Manchester Victoria an on towards Ashton-under-Lyne/Stalybridge. However, in an ideal world I think the TfW service should be a fast from Bangor (Caernarfon) or Holyhead to Hull, Scarborough or Saltburn replacing one of the TPEs east of Manchester Victoria.
Although it's difficult to imagine ScotRail or TfW joining a reborn British Rail, I wouldn't rule such a service out just because it might have to change TOCs mid-journey. That wouldn't be unheard of.

I think the bigger issue is that a Holyhead to Saltburn service would need a lot of recovery time en-route to be remotely reliable. And it's such a long journey that you would probably only have a handful of direct trains - look at how many through Liverpool to Norwich services there are each day, as opposed to short workings to Nottingham.

Stockport is closer (as the crow flies at least) to Manchester Airport than Hazel Grove is; wouldn't a bus/taxi direct to the airport from Stockport be faster (and not slow down passengers between Sheffield and central Manchester by adding stops)?
Not since the Eastern Link Road opened.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
11,760
I don't know the answers to your questions on whether there would be platform space, but yes the 'other half' I think would be directed down the airport line. It seems sensible to try and keep routes seperate and avoid crossing each other on the flat, with a few exceptions to maintain through links where there are major flows. Obviously there may be issues with platform space and pathing given the interfaces most services will have with others elsewhere, but that means virtually everything through platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly running to either Manchester Airport or Styal (and beyond) and zero services between the Airport/Styal and Piccadilly platforms 1-12. For Castlefield, the only obvious 'major flow' that needs an exception is 1tph between Liverpool and Sheffield (I'm probably quite clueless as to what the main flows are, so from my point of view I don't care if this carries to to Nottingham/Grantham/Norwich or to Cleethorpes). Is there any other reason for Castlefield to have services towards Stockport?


This is the sort of thing I was getting at by saying "in a world without franchise silo-ing" earlier. To avoid crossing moves, the right thing to do with most services from Chat Moss is to route them through platforms 3/4 at Manchester Victoria an on towards Ashton-under-Lyne/Stalybridge. However, in an ideal world I think the TfW service should be a fast from Bangor (Caernarfon) or Holyhead to Hull, Scarborough or Saltburn replacing one of the TPEs east of Manchester Victoria.


Stockport is closer (as the crow flies at least) to Manchester Airport than Hazel Grove is; wouldn't a bus/taxi direct to the airport from Stockport be faster (and not slow down passengers between Sheffield and central Manchester by adding stops)?

The AA says it takes 16 mins to cover the 8.4 miles from Hazel Grove station to Terminal 1.
The AA says it takes 15 mins to cover the 7.9 miles from Stockport station to Terminal 1 Via M60 and M56

Stockport is 0.5 miles and a minute closer.
But:
Add on the 8 minutes train journey time from Hazel Grove to Stockport.
Add on the X minutes and difficulty of getting from the platforms at Stockport to the taxi or minicab rank.
Add on the X minutes for congestion on the A6 in Stockport, motorway junctions, on the motorways and on the airport approach.

As important is the 10m level access to or ramp/lift to the platforms at Hazel Grove.

Not since the Eastern Link Road opened.

And the Eastern Link road almost certainly suffers from less traffic congestion than the M60.
 
Last edited:

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
3,220
Location
Greater Manchester
For Castlefield, the only obvious 'major flow' that needs an exception is 1tph between Liverpool and Sheffield (snip). Is there any other reason for Castlefield to have services towards Stockport?
Yes. Option C sends 2tph from Castlefield towards Stockport in order to clear paths for an even half hourly stopping service to all the stations on the Styal line. This is provided by 2tph from the Piccadilly main shed to Crewe, instead of the mess of Castlefield services skip stopping at irregular intervals in the current timetable.

The 2tph between Castlefield and Sheffield can cross the Stockport fast lines anywhere between Piccadilly E Junction and Edgeley Junction No.1 - this is not a major constraint.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And once again with this Ringway stuff we head into "tail wagging dog". Just change at Piccadilly, and that is what most people will do. It'll even be cross-platform (albeit the other end of it).
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,853
Location
Manchester
Is there actually demand for that? The M62 is of course not only used for Liverpool to Hull journeys, but a load of overlapping intermediate trips.
I think the point was that Hull has more demand for destinations west of Leeds than Scarborough does. A Scarborough - York and Hull - Liverpool service would also be operationally superior. However, removing Scarborough to Leeds through trains is politically probably intolerable.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think the point was that Hull has more demand for destinations west of Leeds than Scarborough does. A Scarborough - York and Hull - Liverpool service would also be operationally superior. However, removing Scarborough to Leeds through trains is politically probably intolerable.

But all 3 of the options include a Manchester-Hull service, so we're just talking about which one extends to Liverpool, and TBH the end to end demand won't be huge with either, so just pick whichever is operationally more convenient. It's Liverpool-Newcastle that is the one that's useful to have as a through service where end to end demand will exist.
 

HST43257

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
737
Location
York
Where’s the best place to post my Manchester service ideas (pre and post high speed)? Would quite like to sum it all up in 1 post but I doubt here is the place.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,853
Location
Manchester
But all 3 of the options include a Manchester-Hull service, so we're just talking about which one extends to Liverpool, and TBH the end to end demand won't be huge with either, so just pick whichever is operationally more convenient. It's Liverpool-Newcastle that is the one that's useful to have as a through service where end to end demand will exist.
Yes, there's no debate about that though. The question being asked is over the second Liverpool - Manchester train.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
732
Location
Cheshire
Is there any case where 2tph Leeds to Chester via Calder Valley and Warrington could extend to Llandudno? Means 2tph from the Calder Valley west of Manchester, as planned, as well as no silly Mid-Cheshire line TfW ’service’

As suggested already the Welsh government won't like the idea of the Llandudno service being operated by an 'English franchise' and the relevant PTEs won't want a 'Welsh franchise' taking over Greater Manchester to Yorkshire services, which will affect how much influence the PTEs have over them.

Whether it's 'silly' depends on what journey you are making. If you want to get from North Wales to Sheffield then the diversion via Stockport under option C will be useful and the diversion to Victoria under options A and B will make the journey more difficult to make.

Does anyone know how many journeys are made from Llandudno/Colwyn Bay/Flint/Shotton to Manchester daily, in comparison to the number of journeys made from Chester? For those travelling from Chester or somewhere where a change at Chester is required e.g. Wrexham or Hooton then option C is best as that offers 4 trains to Manchester each hour including a semi-fast to Piccadilly, rather than the 3 offered under options A and B which only offer a slow stopper to Piccadilly.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,378
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Extend the Halifax-Hull train which would also give Bradford and Calder Valley the Liverpool service we were promised 7 years ago?
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
3,220
Location
Greater Manchester
Yes, there's no debate about that though. The question being asked is over the second Liverpool - Manchester train.
But how is that relevant to this consultation? All three options have 5tph from Leeds to Manchester via Huddersfield, of which 1tph terminates at Piccadilly and 4tph go to Victoria, with 2tph continuing to Liverpool and at least 1tph to the Airport. Whether or not the destinations east of Leeds can be swapped will depend on the constraints imposed by the ECML timetable, which will be the same for all three options. The consultation document says:
24. The other key work progressing is the future service pattern on the East Coast Mainline. Decisions emerging from this work may impact on the service patterns from the North East and Yorkshire to Manchester and Liverpool. The Manchester Recovery Task Force work is based on the existing service patterns. These could change in the future, and the two projects are working closely to ensure their conclusions are compatible.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
732
Location
Cheshire
Extend the Halifax-Hull train which would also give Bradford and Calder Valley the Liverpool service we were promised 7 years ago?

7 years ago? I thought that was one of the services DfT and Rail North didn't require franchise bidders to include but Arriva included it in their bid as an additional Northern Connect service to be introduced in the December 2019 changes. Surely any aspirations Arriva had for providing above the required minimum level specified are now dead given the problems that have arisen and the fact that Arriva no longer have the franchise so their franchise commitments are meaningless.

DfT and Rail North did promise you a Manchester Airport service but I think it's safe to presume 4 services an hour between Victoria and the airport isn't happening anytime soon.

At least you got your promised Chester service and your promised brand new trains, that's more than some routes have got!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
15,853
Location
Manchester
But how is that relevant to this consultation? All three options have 5tph from Leeds to Manchester via Huddersfield, of which 1tph terminates at Piccadilly and 4tph go to Victoria, with 2tph continuing to Liverpool and at least 1tph to the Airport. Whether or not the destinations east of Leeds can be swapped will depend on the constraints imposed by the ECML timetable, which will be the same for all three options. The consultation document says:
I pointed it out because it seemed that Bletchleyite was suggesting in response to a query over this point that there would only need to be one Leeds to Liverpool fast train per hour. From my own point of view I don't think it matters really at all where the trains go east of Leeds.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I pointed it out because it seemed that Bletchleyite was suggesting in response to a query over this point that there would only need to be one Leeds to Liverpool fast train per hour. From my own point of view I don't think it matters really at all where the trains go east of Leeds.

I would say Newcastle is a more useful destination than any of the other north TPE destinations. I don't think (and that was what I was aiming at) that there is any specific benefit in Liverpool-Hull vs Liverpool-Scarborough, so the choice between those should really just be whichever is operationally more convenient.
 

Llandudno

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2014
Messages
1,041
I would say Newcastle is a more useful destination than any of the other north TPE destinations. I don't think (and that was what I was aiming at) that there is any specific benefit in Liverpool-Hull vs Liverpool-Scarborough, so the choice between those should really just be whichever is operationally more convenient.
Liverpool - Newcastle definitely the most popular pairing of the suggested routings, especially amongst stags, hens and party goers!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Liverpool - Newcastle definitely the most popular pairing of the suggested routings, especially amongst stags, hens and party goers!

Indeed. The others are of course still useful, because there is Liverpool-Leeds/York demand, but the end destination is fairly insignificant beyond the basic case of "Newcastle vs not Newcastle".
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
2,571
Location
Connah's Quay
Is there any case where 2tph Leeds to Chester via Calder Valley and Warrington could extend to Llandudno? Means 2tph from the Calder Valley west of Manchester, as planned, as well as no silly Mid-Cheshire line TfW ’service’
I doubt it. There aren't that many trains along the North Wales coast, and they're split (or planned to be split) between Liverpool, Manchester, London, Birmingham and Cardiff (and beyond). If you sent 2 trains an hour to Manchester, there wouldn't be much space for anything else.

Chester has plenty of east-facing platforms, though, so there's no real need for everything to run through.
For those travelling from Chester or somewhere where a change at Chester is required e.g. Wrexham or Hooton then option C is best as that offers 4 trains to Manchester each hour including a semi-fast to Piccadilly, rather than the 3 offered under options A and B which only offer a slow stopper to Piccadilly.
Do you think so? By my reckoning, option C is pretty poor for people going from Chester to Warrington or Manchester. Compared with the "current" service, the fastest train to Warrington & Manchester Victoria is slowed down (with extra stops at Helsby and Frodsham). The direct trains to Oxford Road and Manchester Airport have gone (you may be able to change, but there's no saying how much that will delay your journey without a timetable). There is a direct train to Manchester Picadilly, but a non-stop train on that route (such as this) can easily be slower than one via Warrington with the standard TfW stops (like this). It may be faster for someone going to Stockport, but it's impossible to tell from the consultation document.

By contrast, option B appears to preserve both the Leeds and Manchester Airport trains as they are.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,482
Location
North Wales
Whether it's 'silly' depends on what journey you are making. If you want to get from North Wales to Sheffield then the diversion via Stockport under option C will be useful and the diversion to Victoria under options A and B will make the journey more difficult to make.
As a counterpoint, option C will make journeys from North Wales to Preston and Scotland more difficult. At present, the Llandudno (soon Bangor) to Manchester services go via Warrington BQ, offering connections with the WCML. This is often more convenient than going via Crewe, as that requires changing trains at Chester for most of the day.

Sending North Wales - Manchester trains via the Mid-Cheshire Line would avoid both Warrington and Crewe, leaving all North Wales travellers needing to change at Chester to access the WCML.

I suppose we could hope for an all-day service from Avanti to mitigate this, but I'm not holding my breath...
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
732
Location
Cheshire
@kieron Option B sees North Wales trains going to Stalybridge after Victoria, which is why I made the example of Sheffield journeys. Under both options A and B it would involve 2 changes instead of 1 and the 'connecting trains' will only be hourly, so option A or B might add an hour or more to journey times.

The Manchester Airport trains are lost under all options and only C retains directs Piccadilly trains. I get they'll be slower and numerous people have made that point, which is why I picked up on faster North Wales to South Yorkshire journeys being a possibility.

@krus_aragon Agreed. Although, I've used the Warrington Bank Quay to Chester train in the past and it seemed almost everyone who get on westbound trains at Warrington Bank Quay got off at either Runcorn East or Chester. Both B and C enhance the service from Warrington to Runcorn East.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
63,720
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I couldn't agree more. One of the really nice things about plan C in particular is it simplifies the rail network in Manchester so much, with nice regular times to the same station from each destination. Driving a token Pendolino through platforms 13/14 is ridiculous, even outside of the peak. Bolton gets a very nice regular service from Picadillly, with good changes onto the London service, that is a much, much better plan for the meantime. Once HS2 phase 2B, or other significant improvements appear in Manchester, that's the right time to be looking at new services like this.

HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full (which would shift the role of Castlefield a bit), I'd say. But it has been proposed that the Euston-Brum-Scotland service would, in HS2 phase 2b when there's an HS2 Brum-Scotland, be replaced with a Euston-Manchester-Scotland which would replace the present TPE service. That may well be viable because all you're doing is matching up existing paths either side of Manchester, and few would use this as a Manchester-Euston service.

This is only a problem because currently so many trains are diagrammed into these platforms, meaning most trains can only afford to be waiting at the platform for a couple minutes or less, before it delays the next arrival. With other services being diverted away from platforms 13/14, it will create bigger windows to potentially put a London service (such as the London-Manchester-Scotland idea mentioned above) through there and path it to wait the necessary few minutes for loading/unloading.

No it won't. It will create bigger windows for resilience and service recovery.

Again, don't undo the good work of the Taskforce.

If it replaced both one of the existing Manchester-London services and the TPE Scotland service - thereby providing connections to Scotland for Stockport and one of Wilmslow or Macclesfield, and freeing up an Airport path, (which would allow the introduction of a second hourly stopper and therefore facilitate the removal of the random stops from the Northern and TfW fasts, simplifying the timetable significantly), all without needing more paths than currently - then I'd certainly be in favour of it.

But as an additional service - no, it's not needed.

That is actually one of the post-HS2 proposals. But would Boltonians really use a slower direct service when they could take any train to Manchester and connect onto HS2 and do the journey much faster? They might if priced onto it, but that really isn't the way to go with classic WCML services post-HS2 as all it'll do is cause overcrowding for no real end.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
3,220
Location
Greater Manchester
Do you think so? By my reckoning, option C is pretty poor for people going from Chester to Warrington or Manchester. Compared with the "current" service, the fastest train to Warrington & Manchester Victoria is slowed down (with extra stops at Helsby and Frodsham). The direct trains to Oxford Road and Manchester Airport have gone (you may be able to change, but there's no saying how much that will delay your journey without a timetable). There is a direct train to Manchester Picadilly, but a non-stop train on that route (such as this) can easily be slower than one via Warrington with the standard TfW stops (like this). It may be faster for someone going to Stockport, but it's impossible to tell from the consultation document.
I believe all three options, not just Option C, add stops to the (currently) faster services between Chester and Manchester via Warrington, in order to provide a 2tph frequency at the intermediate stations and provide a more even spacing between successive trains at the major stations.

Retaining the current service is not an option.
By contrast, option B appears to preserve both the Leeds and Manchester Airport trains as they are.
Option B retains direct Chester - Airport trains but breaks the direct link between Chester and the Calder Valley - a change at Victoria is required. Plus the Chester via Warrington services remain inconveniently split between Piccadilly and Victoria, with only 1tph from each. Options A and C both have 2tph to Chester from Victoria.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
732
Location
Cheshire
Is there actually demand for that? The M62 is of course not only used for Liverpool to Hull journeys, but a load of overlapping intermediate trips.

I agree. Train services don't generally duplicate Motorways. If they did there would be a huge interchange in the West Midlands where a lot of services would start and terminate. I know a number of people who use a combination of the M6 and M62 to get from the North West to Yorkshire, a direct Liverpool to Hull service won't fulfill their journey needs and get them using the train instead.
By my reckoning, option C is pretty poor for people going from Chester to Warrington or Manchester. Compared with the "current" service, the fastest train to Warrington & Manchester Victoria is slowed down (with extra stops at Helsby and Frodsham).

I thought I'd mentioned this previously but on checking it doesn't look like I did. I think what most people boarding at Chester and travelling to Manchester want is a seat on the train, as it's a long way to stand, so the more Manchester services the greater the chance of a seat. A train starting at Chester will also have more empty seats at Chester station than a train which has come from somewhere else.

For Northwich passengers the previously proposed Greenbank to Manchester service, gives a better option of getting a seat for those boarding at Northwich but it then has the disadvantage of no service frequency enhancement to Chester.

Both option B and C seem to suggest Chester-Warrington-Victoria will be half-hourly and all-stops between Chester and Warrington. One thing that isn't mentioned is how the Mid-Cheshire service(s) will fit in alongside those, so hopefully that at least partly depends on consultation responses. Under option C both the below could be possibilities for arrivals and departures from Chester:

10:00 from Bangor to Piccadilly
10:15 to Leeds via Victoria
10:25 from Birmingham via Wrexham, to Holyhead
10:30 to Piccadilly, all stops via Altrincham
10:45 to Leeds via Victoria

Or it could be:
10:00 to Piccadilly, all stops via Altrincham
10:00 from Birmingham via Wrexham, to Holyhead
10:05 to Leeds via Victoria
10:25 from Bangor to Piccadilly
10:35 to Leeds via Victoria

One is obviously much better for Wrexham to Manchester journeys and for Bangor to Warrington journeys than the other. However, there's obviously England to England journeys to consider as well.
 

Top