Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[IanXC]

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.

From a Yorkshire perspective this is the big anomaly in these plans, but then always has been.

Prioritising Scarborough over Hull has echoes of the tail wagging the dog in the way Manchester Airport does. Do we prioritise services to a seaside town of 61,000 that people happen to go to occasionally for leisure purposes over a city with a population of 259,000 (and an urban area population of 573,000)? Before someone raises York (which yes is a tourist destination but 210,000 population) even if the Scarborough was totally lost (more later) then it would still have 3 fast services per hour to Manchester....

Scarborough has a very good case for services to Leeds, there is no denying that, but the case that is has a better call on services to Manchester than Hull is, in my opinion, non existent.

I'd propose that the Scarborough service becomes the off pattern slow to Manchester Piccadilly, picking up the local calls after Manchester, and the Hull service becomes the express to Liverpool.

This is all rather by the by though as far as the consultations scope is concerned in the Manchester area.

On a more relevant note, I am intrigued by the suggestion of terminating one of the Sheffield services at Piccadilly, to enable a Liverpool to Airport via Warrington Central service. I'm not close enough to the timetable options to know whether this is achievable though?

 

[tbtc]

From a Yorkshire perspective this is the big anomaly in these plans, but then always has been.

Prioritising Scarborough over Hull has echoes of the tail wagging the dog in the way Manchester Airport does. Do we prioritise services to a seaside town of 61,000 that people happen to go to occasionally for leisure purposes over a city with a population of 259,000 (and an urban area population of 573,000)? Before someone raises York (which yes is a tourist destination but 210,000 population) even if the Scarborough was totally lost (more later) then it would still have 3 fast services per hour to Manchester....

Scarborough has a very good case for services to Leeds, there is no denying that, but the case that is has a better call on services to Manchester than Hull is, in my opinion, non existent.

I'd propose that the Scarborough service becomes the off pattern slow to Manchester Piccadilly, picking up the local calls after Manchester, and the Hull service becomes the express to Liverpool.

This is all rather by the by though as far as the consultations scope is concerned in the Manchester area.

I think it's more about the fifteen minute frequency from York to Leeds than any particular demand from one east coast place to Manchester Airport - I don't think that it particularly matters which service has the stops at places like Marsden, just that one of the services needs to, and I guess it keeps things simpler to have all of the "fast" services running to York - otherwise I guess you'd need to have the Hull and Scarborough services at Leeds at the same time (if you were having four co-ordinated services from Manchester Victoria to Leeds and then four co-ordinated services from Leeds to York)

That said, I've suggested before that Scarborough and Middlesbrough would be fine with a good service as far as York with a reduced frequency west of there - it'd mean fewer of the short services each hour through Leeds - maybe that could mean a half hourly York - Scarborough and a half hourly York - Teesside (some to Middlesbrough/ Redcar, some to Sunderland when co-ordinated with the GC trains) but a significant reduction in longer distance trains

On a more relevant note, I am intrigued by the suggestion of terminating one of the Sheffield services at Piccadilly, to enable a Liverpool to Airport via Warrington Central service. I'm not close enough to the timetable options to know whether this is achievable though?

Interesting idea - it'd be a bit negative for Sheffield (trains departing from different bits of Piccadilly, two services to Oxford Road/ Liverpool would be better than one - I've used connections at Warrington for Scottish services before and I'd have felt more comfortable if the trains back to Sheffield were half hourly rather than risking missing an hourly train) but I'd okay if that was the solution that they went for - I think that Liverpool will be "noisier" about long destinations, so there'll probably be more people on Merseyside who'd prefer one Sheffield train and one Airport train than two Sheffield trains - fair enough if that's what they decide on I guess.

Maybe that would mean that the Manchester Airport service would pick up on all of the "local" stops that are getting required due to the reduction in frequency of the Oxford Road stopper, keeping the Nottingham train at the current calling pattern?

 

[Greybeard33]

On a more relevant note, I am intrigued by the suggestion of terminating one of the Sheffield services at Piccadilly, to enable a Liverpool to Airport via Warrington Central service. I'm not close enough to the timetable options to know whether this is achievable though?

That is what happens in the current Dec 2020 timetable, or did before the extra lockdown cuts.

In Option A the Northern Liverpool - Warrington - Airport service is retained, but the Cleethorpes train (or at least half of it) reverses out of the Piccadilly shed and runs to the Airport and back, as it did pre-Covid. The Task Force calls this reversing move "very operationally challenging", and gets rid of it in Options B and C by sending the Cleethorpes train on to Liverpool in place of the Northern Airport train.

 

[Hey 3]

That is what happens in the current Dec 2020 timetable, or did before the extra lockdown cuts.

In Option A the Northern Liverpool - Warrington - Airport service is retained, but the Cleethorpes train (or at least half of it) reverses out of the Piccadilly shed and runs to the Airport and back, as it did pre-Covid. The Task Force calls this reversing move "very operationally challenging", and gets rid of it in Options B and C by sending the Cleethorpes train on to Liverpool in place of the Northern Airport train.

I know the move is operationally challenging, but it is not as challenging for say a TPE Newcastle/Middlesbrough service coming from the airport and reversing at Manchester Piccadilly and then has to cross the Manchester Piccadilly throat and then run to Newcastle via Guide Bridge, Standedge and Huddersfield(Until of course the Ordsall Chord opened).
Even worse was the Liverpool Lime Street to Scarbrough and Newcastle service, because they were routed via Warrington Central, thus meaning the trains had no choice but to go through the Castlefield Corridor and then at P13/P14 it had to cross the WHOLE Manchester Piccadily throat and run the same way as the airport service(Until of course May 2018 when they got sent back to Manchester Victoria and via Chat Moss and Ashton-under-Lyne) .

 

[IanXC]

I think it's more about the fifteen minute frequency from York to Leeds than any particular demand from one east coast place to Manchester Airport - I don't think that it particularly matters which service has the stops at places like Marsden, just that one of the services needs to, and I guess it keeps things simpler to have all of the "fast" services running to York - otherwise I guess you'd need to have the Hull and Scarborough services at Leeds at the same time (if you were having four co-ordinated services from Manchester Victoria to Leeds and then four co-ordinated services from Leeds to York)

That said, I've suggested before that Scarborough and Middlesbrough would be fine with a good service as far as York with a reduced frequency west of there - it'd mean fewer of the short services each hour through Leeds - maybe that could mean a half hourly York - Scarborough and a half hourly York - Teesside (some to Middlesbrough/ Redcar, some to Sunderland when co-ordinated with the GC trains) but a significant reduction in longer distance trains

Except that in the current base WTT for York to Leeds as I recall you don't get 15 minute spacing anyway. The CrossCountry (and the Northern Blackpool pretty much) provide additional express services, so for anyone who is travelling "on spec" then there are still 5 or 6 services with a maximum of one stop to Leeds, and I am far from convinced there are many people travelling on a turn up and go basis from York to Manchester.

I think on the basis that there would be 3 TPE fasts plus CrossCountry, plus Northern's Blackpool, plus the Scarborough you could abandon the need to provide a particular clockface departure pattern from York. Instead provide the Hull and the 3 fasts as the Leeds to Manchester 15 minute clockface service. This idea that somehow York having an evenly spaced 4tph express service to Leeds/Manchester trumps Hull having one express service per hour to Manchester (or even Liverpool!) is something I just can't understant.

I'd be inclined to rank the eastern origins on Transpennine in the following order:

Newcastle
Edinburgh (at this point York has 2tph which seems suitable)
Hull
Middlesbrough
Scarborough

I'd look favourably on anything that respects that kind of prioritisation.

Another point I find interesting is that the NPR project team have selected Leeds and Sheffield to Hull as the first phase they'd look to deliver. Now clearly that is partly about deliverability but lets face it, they wouldn't chose to prioritise something that they didn't think had a very good case in the first place.

That is what happens in the current Dec 2020 timetable, or did before the extra lockdown cuts.

In Option A the Northern Liverpool - Warrington - Airport service is retained, but the Cleethorpes train (or at least half of it) reverses out of the Piccadilly shed and runs to the Airport and back, as it did pre-Covid. The Task Force calls this reversing move "very operationally challenging", and gets rid of it in Options B and C by sending the Cleethorpes train on to Liverpool in place of the Northern Airport train.

I probably should have said 'whether it is deliverable in the context of the consultations objectives'. The idea I'd be thinking is that one (eg the Cleethorpes) terminates at Piccadilly, and the Liverpool-Airport express via Warrington Central is retained. Could that Castlefield path be repurposed for this and lined up with the CLC?

I'm not sure a second train per hour to Liverpool is of as much benefit to Sheffield as retaining a Liverpool to Manchester Airport service at all is, even given the 2tph timetable benefits.

 

[Hey 3]

I know the move is operationally challenging, but it is not as challenging for say a TPE Newcastle/Middlesbrough service coming from the airport and reversing at Manchester Piccadilly and then has to cross the Manchester Piccadilly throat and then run to Newcastle via Guide Bridge, Standedge and Huddersfield(Until of course the Ordsall Chord opened).
Even worse was the Liverpool Lime Street to Scarbrough and Newcastle service, because they were routed via Warrington Central, thus meaning the trains had no choice but to go through the Castlefield Corridor and then at P13/P14 it had to cross the WHOLE Manchester Piccadily throat and run the same way as the airport service(Until of course May 2018 when they got sent back to Manchester Victoria and via Chat Moss and Ashton-under-Lyne) .

And of course in May 2018, *coughs* the services were extended to Edinburgh Waverley and Redcar Central respectively

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder to stick to discussing the proposals that are part of the consultation in this thread please

If anyone wishes to discuss any alternative suggestions please either create a new thread in the Speculative Ideas section (if there isn't one already) or use an existing thread, as appropriate.

Many thanks

I've not had time to go through all recent posts to check which aren't on topic but based on some reports received, some posts have been moved to:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-tpe-serve-scarborough-with-a-shuttle-service-from-york.214298/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-castlefield-again.204599/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-avanti-services-continue-north-from-manchester-piccadilly.214282/

 

[Greybeard33]

I probably should have said 'whether it is deliverable in the context of the consultations objectives'. The idea I'd be thinking is that one (eg the Cleethorpes) terminates at Piccadilly, and the Liverpool-Airport express via Warrington Central is retained. Could that Castlefield path be repurposed for this and lined up with the CLC?

I'm not sure a second train per hour to Liverpool is of as much benefit to Sheffield as retaining a Liverpool to Manchester Airport service at all is, even given the 2tph timetable benefits.

I believe the paths align at Piccadilly, which is how the Cleethorpes service can be extended to Liverpool in Options B and C. I suspect the reason the Task Force has not supported continued termination of the Cleethorpes service at Piccadilly post-Covid is that Sheffield - Airport passengers would have to trek between Platform 9 and Platforms 13/14 for a fast Airport service, or take the stopper from Platform 10/11.

Options B and C give a cross platform change on Platform 13/14 between either Sheffield service and one of the frequent fast Airport services. Also a same platform change for Bolton/Preston/Blackpool/Cumbria.

 

[kieron]

@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.

I think we both got a bit confused about the timetable here. Everyhing is as andyj158 described it.

I get the point about Chester-Stockport (and beyond). People will value having a faster direct service. As the non-stop service takes 54 minutes to get as far as Stockport, a limited stop service may well be faster than changing at Crewe.

I didn't mean to say that option C would be bad for any journey from Chester. Only that it isn't the best option for a number of common journeys.

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.

I don't think they slow the Chester service down in options A or B. The consultation document says that:

In Timetable Option C, a number of stations gain an improvement in frequency, helping contribute to overall benefits. For example:

... Runcorn East, Frodsham and Helsby receive a half hourly instead of hourly service.

While this isn't an entirely accurate description of the pre-Covid timetable, it does suggest that the other options were drawn up under the assumption that there would be no extra stops south of Warrington.

I don't know why they decided to reserve this "benefit" for option C alone, but it does seem to be what they've done.

 

[earthmover]

Hopefully this is on topic. The document is about the Manchester Corridor, its proposals do continue to see TPE services from Hull remain as a semi local service in the 2 new options between Leeds and Manchester, where it continues to terminate.
If you looked at end destinations TPE serves, then Hull, especially with the 'levelling up' should be nearer the top of the list than the bottom.
The end destination should again rank it higher than bottom of the list for connecting communities either Manchester Airport or Liverpool
If a train has to be reduced from an Express to a Semi Fast between Leeds and Manchester should it really be the Hull service?

On the Trans Pennine Corridor, Huddersfield is the best interchange point between TPE services. Rather than York, Leeds or the 3 Manchester Stations. Especially with all services stopping there.

Perhaps it is the wide range of rolling stock used, where depots are located that is shaping the plan, rather than levelling up the North?

If a station has inferior journey opportunities, this leads to supressed demand, bolstering the view not many people travel from this principle station to another principle station. Rather than why are journeys so low? The Leeds- York corridor does appear to have a lot of services, competing TOCS, and variety of destinations, all this enables wide range of very cheap tickets.

 

[peters]

I didn't mean to say that option C would be bad for any journey from Chester. Only that it isn't the best option for a number of common journeys.

I did ask in an earlier post if anyone had any ideas of the numbers travelling between North Wales and Manchester on direct trains compared to the numbers travelling between Chester to Manchester but as no-one has responded to that I don't think we know for certain how many people would be affected by the North Wales service changing.

Looking on journey planners the 08:23 Chester to Victoria which calls at all stations to Warrington takes 56 minutes to get from Chester to Victoria, the 07:50 Chester to Piccadilly takes 65 minutes. So a question to perhaps ask is retaining a direct service to the airport more beneficial than a faster service from Chester to Manchester city centre?

I find it interesting that the report seems to suggest through trains from both North Wales and South Yorkshire to Manchester Airport are difficult to path and consequently removing those direct connections would allow more service improvements. However, despite that there is an option which retains those direct links. On the other hand there isn't an option which retains regular Southport to Piccadilly services or Cumbria to Manchester via Wigan services. Perhaps that might be why Andy Burnham is pushing for a "none of the above" option?

If a train has to be reduced from an Express to a Semi Fast between Leeds and Manchester should it really be the Hull service?

I think it relates to consistency so there's a half-hourly Manchester Airport to York service and a half-hourly Liverpool to York service giving a roughly 15 minute frequency between Victoria and York. If you make the Hull service one of the 4 express services via Victoria it means an inconsistent timetable, like it was when there were only 4 North TPE services.

On the Trans Pennine Corridor, Huddersfield is the best interchange point between TPE services. Rather than York, Leeds or the 3 Manchester Stations. Especially with all services stopping there.

Indeed and normally a Hull train would arrive platform 1 at Huddersfield and a Liverpool train would depart from platform 1. On the other hand at Piccadilly the Hull train might terminate at platform 3 and you'd have to go to platform 14 for a Liverpool train with it's airport style 'wait in lounge' system.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

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? A journey time of around 2 hours 30 minutes? Would that be good use of a train. Despite being a key city in the region, I would imagine that these plans were first drafted before the ideas of 'levelling up' were announced by the Government. In the plans, there are no options for Hull services apart from terminating at Piccadilly and with options B and C adding local stops all day between Huddersfield and Stalybridge.

As someone who lives near one of the local stopping stations between Piccadilly and Huddersfield, whilst I really would be happy with the increase of 2tph all day stopping, it does seem a bit odd that this would be of a Picadilly-Hull service - why not a more local shorter stopping service terminating at Pic/Huddersfield?

If B or C goes ahead, my local station Greenfield would receive a 2tph service all day for the first time in its 172 year history. I personally am very looking forward to this - although I don't know why it's happening off the back of a timetable change which is being put in place to sort out the Castlefield issues as the Hull-Piccadilly and Huddersfield-Piccadilly trains don't even use the corridor.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Hopefully this is on topic. The document is about the Manchester Corridor, its proposals do continue to see TPE services from Hull remain as a semi local service in the 2 new options between Leeds and Manchester, where it continues to terminate.
If you looked at end destinations TPE serves, then Hull, especially with the 'levelling up' should be nearer the top of the list than the bottom.
The end destination should again rank it higher than bottom of the list for connecting communities either Manchester Airport or Liverpool
If a train has to be reduced from an Express to a Semi Fast between Leeds and Manchester should it really be the Hull service?

On the Trans Pennine Corridor, Huddersfield is the best interchange point between TPE services. Rather than York, Leeds or the 3 Manchester Stations. Especially with all services stopping there.

Perhaps it is the wide range of rolling stock used, where depots are located that is shaping the plan, rather than levelling up the North?

If a station has inferior journey opportunities, this leads to supressed demand, bolstering the view not many people travel from this principle station to another principle station. Rather than why are journeys so low? The Leeds- York corridor does appear to have a lot of services, competing TOCS, and variety of destinations, all this enables wide range of very cheap tickets.

How many stops do you need to add for an 'express' to become a 'semi-fast'? In the If TPML Gets Fully Electrified topic, I suggested a half-hourly express between York and Manchester Victoria calling only at Leeds and Huddersfield alongside a half-hourly link between Garforth and Manchester (1tph each from Vic. and Picc.) calling at Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds and Garforth, removing the need to change to get between Stalybridge and Dewsbury or Dewsbury and Garforth. Would this addition of Dewsbury and Garforth stops on the Hull service make it a 'semi-fast' or would you consider that an appropriate service for Hull?

 

[Greybeard33]

I don't think they slow the Chester service down in options A or B. The consultation document says that:


While this isn't an entirely accurate description of the pre-Covid timetable, it does suggest that the other options were drawn up under the assumption that there would be no extra stops south of Warrington.

I don't know why they decided to reserve this "benefit" for option C alone, but it does seem to be what they've done.

Yes, I agree that you are probably correct. Although the description of Option C, being the preferred option, does seem to go into more detail than for the other two options. For example, on the Huddersfield line, the Appendix says that the Hull train will call at all stations in Option B as well as C. But in the option descriptions, the 2tph frequency at Mossley, Greenfield, etc. is only claimed as a benefit for Option C, not B.

If Option A or B is adopted after the consultation, I would not rule out the possibility of further refinements such as changes to stopping patterns between Chester and Warrington. In each option one or other of the paths through central Manchester changes from the baseline, which could affect timings at Warrington.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Option A or B is adopted after the consultation, I would not rule out the possibility of further refinements such as changes to stopping patterns between Chester and Warrington. In each option one or other of the paths through central Manchester changes from the baseline, which could affect timings at Warrington.

I suspect we will actually end up with a combination of the options (e.g. option C with a bit of swapping round of branches). And that's fine - you've got to start somewhere with a consultation, and if you had 25 different options you'd not get useful answers.

Wouldn't be the first time - Northern did that with the seats on the 195/331, i.e. instead of the winner (FISA LEAN) or what they wanted (normal ironing boards) they compromised on the contoured-base ironing board.

 

[Glenn1969]

I still think they offered C to make people think they are open to change but will go with A

 

[Greybeard33]

Wouldn't be the first time - Northern did that with the seats on the 195/331, i.e. instead of the winner (FISA LEAN) or what they wanted (normal ironing boards) they compromised on the contoured-base ironing board.

Only on RailUK could ironing board seats find their way into a timetable thread!

 

[BrianW]

Only on RailUK could ironing board seats find their way into a timetable thread!

It does relate to the 'value' of consultation exercises whether 'regarding' timetables or seats, and arguably anything in the interst of doing what is best rather than prefrred. It also shows how 'surveys' can sadly be biased unwittingly or not by what you ask and how and to whom and when.

 

[Starmill]

As someone who lives near one of the local stopping stations between Piccadilly and Huddersfield, whilst I really would be happy with the increase of 2tph all day stopping, it does seem a bit odd that this would be of a Picadilly-Hull service - why not a more local shorter stopping service terminating at Pic/Huddersfield?

If B or C goes ahead, my local station Greenfield would receive a 2tph service all day for the first time in its 172 year history. I personally am very looking forward to this - although I don't know why it's happening off the back of a timetable change which is being put in place to sort out the Castlefield issues as the Hull-Piccadilly and Huddersfield-Piccadilly trains don't even use the corridor.

Presumably because there'd be a seventh train all day between Manchester and Huddersfield if that happened.

 

[peters]

If B or C goes ahead, my local station Greenfield would receive a 2tph service all day for the first time in its 172 year history. I personally am very looking forward to this - although I don't know why it's happening off the back of a timetable change which is being put in place to sort out the Castlefield issues as the Hull-Piccadilly and Huddersfield-Piccadilly trains don't even use the corridor.

The consultation isn't just to look at options through Castlefield, otherwise it wouldn't impact Buxton, Sheffield and Chester via Altrincham services. There's pathing issues into Piccadilly from both directions.

you've got to start somewhere with a consultation, and if you had 25 different options you'd not get useful answers.

Yes. With the two Chester to Manchester routes it seems they have suggested 3 possible options for the route via Warrington:
1. Half-hourly Chester to Leeds
2. Chester to Stalybridge and North Wales to the airport
3. Chester to Leeds and North Wales to Stalybridge

But what about a 'Northern Connect' Chester to Manchester Airport and North Wales to Stalybridge or keeping the current service pattern? Presumably that could be accommodated but they wanted to put forward 3 options so they put forward 3, not every possible option.

Then if the via Altrincham route is taken into consideration the express could be a Northern service with the TfW service going into Victoria but that doesn't work as well with the idea of consistent half-hourly services on most routes even if it might go down better with the Welsh.

 

[Manutd1999]

How about this for an “option C+”?

Switch the TPE from Scarborough to Hull.
Run 2x stoppers Piccadilly to Huddersfield

Hull is surely a bigger market ex Manchester? Leeds to Scarborough can be served easily enough by extending a different service (e.g. the Blackpool to York). This would allow the 2x Piccadilly services to act a genuine stoppers, possibly extending to Wakefield/Castleford.

Extend one (or both) of the Blackburn-Rochdale services back to Blackburn via Todmorden.

Make both Wigan/Atherton services continue as Calder Valley stoppers to Leeds

These relatively small changes allow for an extra Calder Valley service (Bradford gets 3 hourly to Manchester) and makes the service pattern more consistent, whilst keeping the 6ph to Rochdale.

Re-instate a Liverpool–Airport semi-fast service via Warrington.

This gives Liverpool its airport link back, with minimal change for other stations. The CLC line sees 4 trains per hour (2x fast, 1x semi-fast, 1x stopper split at Warrington) – which should be do-able.

Switch 1x Airport service to the Calder Valley and 1x Chester service to TPE.

This is where it gets a bit more controversial and disrupts the half-hourly service pattern, but I think it would be worth it as it offers some big benefits. - Chester gains a fast service to Leeds (and beyond) as ‘compensation’ for losing the Airport link. This could even be extended to North Wales.
- Bradford, Rochdale and the Calder Valley gain a long promised Airport service.
- Huddersfield gains a service to Warrington and Chester, although drops down to 1x hourly to the airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 fast, 2 slow west of Warrington and 1 east, plus one semifast, does work on the CLC as that is the 1990s pattern however what are you going to take off Castlefield to make space?

 

[northernchris]

How about this for an “option C+”?

Switch the TPE from Scarborough to Hull.
Run 2x stoppers Piccadilly to Huddersfield

Hull is surely a bigger market ex Manchester? Leeds to Scarborough can be served easily enough by extending a different service (e.g. the Blackpool to York). This would allow the 2x Piccadilly services to act a genuine stoppers, possibly extending to Wakefield/Castleford.

Extend one (or both) of the Blackburn-Rochdale services back to Blackburn via Todmorden.

Make both Wigan/Atherton services continue as Calder Valley stoppers to Leeds

These relatively small changes allow for an extra Calder Valley service (Bradford gets 3 hourly to Manchester) and makes the service pattern more consistent, whilst keeping the 6ph to Rochdale.

Re-instate a Liverpool–Airport semi-fast service via Warrington.

This gives Liverpool its airport link back, with minimal change for other stations. The CLC line sees 4 trains per hour (2x fast, 1x semi-fast, 1x stopper split at Warrington) – which should be do-able.

Switch 1x Airport service to the Calder Valley and 1x Chester service to TPE.

This is where it gets a bit more controversial and disrupts the half-hourly service pattern, but I think it would be worth it as it offers some big benefits. - Chester gains a fast service to Leeds (and beyond) as ‘compensation’ for losing the Airport link. This could even be extended to North Wales.
- Bradford, Rochdale and the Calder Valley gain a long promised Airport service.
- Huddersfield gains a service to Warrington and Chester, although drops down to 1x hourly to the airport.

I like the idea of extending one of the Piccadilly - Huddersfield stoppers to Castleford especially as Northern seem to have given up on this part of their network. Whether TPE have the crew or units though is another issue

Option A does link up a Wigan - Victoria with a Calder Valley service, but retains the 2 trains per hour between Victoria and Leeds. By increasing this to 3 it would mess up the 15 minute frequency between Leeds and Halifax (although spacing towards Leeds could be improved with the current times)

 

[Manutd1999]

2 fast, 2 slow west of Warrington and 1 east, plus one semifast, does work on the CLC as that is the 1990s pattern however what are you going to take off Castlefield to make space?

I was envisaging that the 2nd (peak only) Warrington-Oxford Road would be scrapped, leaving 4ph on the CLC line all day (2x fast, 1x semi-fast, 1x stopper). Admittedly the number of trains through Castlefield off-peak rises by 1, but this should still be do-able as only 9ph are planned under Option C and the capacity is somewhere around 10-11ph.

By increasing this to 3 it would mess up the 15 minute frequency between Leeds and Halifax (although spacing towards Leeds could be improved with the current times)

Pre-covid the Halifax to Leeds times were pretty rubbish anyway. Adding a 3rd extra Manchester service also offers the option of 5x hourly to Leeds.

 

[Andyh82]

How about this for an “option C+”?

Switch the TPE from Scarborough to Hull.
Run 2x stoppers Piccadilly to Huddersfield

Hull is surely a bigger market ex Manchester? Leeds to Scarborough can be served easily enough by extending a different service (e.g. the Blackpool to York). This would allow the 2x Piccadilly services to act a genuine stoppers, possibly extending to Wakefield/Castleford.

I’m not sure the eastern termini of the TPE services is really relevant to this consultation to be honest, they are basically all expresses to Huddersfield and Leeds. Where TPE choose to run them to after that won’t effect pathing in Manchester

 

[HST43257]

I know it’s not 2022, but when TPE starts doing 2 semi and 4 fast (post TRU), its going to be a problem, to say the least.

Would it be at all viable to serve Manchester Airport via a fast bus/tram link from Stockport, with 1 or 2 tph using the Stalybridge to Stockport route? Reducing long distance stuff on Castlefield, yet still getting fairly close to the airport.

 

[Watershed]

Would it be at all viable to serve Manchester Airport via a fast bus/tram link from Stockport, with 1 or 2 tph using the Stalybridge to Stockport route? Reducing long distance stuff on Castlefield, yet still getting fairly close to the airport.

From a practicality point of view it's also a difficult one - Stockport has only got platform 1 for reversing trains, apart from the bay (3A), which at 97m is too short for most trains. There's unlikely to be a spare 10 minutes or so on platform 1 that matches up with paths on the rest of the journey.

You'd need to find paths crossing both Up lines at some points (whether at Heaton Norris or Stockport), as well as through the single line section from Ash Bridge Jn to Denton Jn, and the single lead at Guide Bridge.

In any case it's best simply terminating at Piccadilly if an airport link is the aim. You'll never get most rail users to accept a bus connection to the Airport.

 

[LowLevel]

From a practicality point of view it's also a difficult one - Stockport doesn't have any platforms that can be used reversibly in passenger service, apart from the bay (3A), which at 97m is too short for most trains.

You'd need to find paths crossing both Up lines at some points (whether at Heaton Norris or Stockport), as well as through the single line section from Ash Bridge Jn to Denton Jn, and the single lead at Guide Bridge.

In any case it's best simply terminating at Piccadilly if an airport link is the aim. You'll never get most rail users to accept a bus connection to the Airport.

Trains can depart northbound from platform 1 on to the down fast at Stockport. Whether this is a good use of it is a different matter.

 

[Watershed]

Trains can depart northbound from platform 1 on to the down fast at Stockport. Whether this is a good use of it is a different matter.

Good point, forgot about that one - but of course the issue is that you're unlikely to have a spare 10 minutes or so on the graph to fit in a train reversing there.

Even then, that leaves no leeway whatsoever for late-running.

 

[Llandudno]

From a practicality point of view it's also a difficult one - Stockport doesn't have any platforms that can be used reversibly in passenger service, apart from the bay (3A), which at 97m is too short for most trains.

You'd need to find paths crossing both Up lines at some points (whether at Heaton Norris or Stockport), as well as through the single line section from Ash Bridge Jn to Denton Jn, and the single lead at Guide Bridge.

In any case it's best simply terminating at Piccadilly if an airport link is the aim. You'll never get most rail users to accept a bus connection to the Airport.

There is a fast bus via the M60/M56 Skyline 199 every 30 minutes early till late from Stockport, (originates from Buxton) but sadly doesn’t divert via the station approach.