• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I'm also aware a TWAO was submitted for Castlefield. 8 years ago. It was Graylinged as too expensive

I'm just saying it could meet the same fate

I'm putting Piccadilly 13/14 in the "overtaken by events" box now.

AIUI the Task Force options were developed by Steer consultants under contract to the DfT.
Steer appointed to work with Network Rail’s North West and Central Region | Steer (steergroup.com)

Who almost certainly answered the exam question set to them - come up with a train service that is operationally robust on the current infrastructure. Which they did (on the assumption that stakeholders can be brought on board, and that it can be resourced with trains and drivers, each of which is for others to make happen).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Who almost certainly answered the exam question set to them - come up with a train service that is operationally robust on the current infrastructure. Which they did (on the assumption that stakeholders can be brought on board, and that it can be resourced with trains and drivers, each of which is for others to make happen).
In which case Steer failed to do their homework properly before wasting a lot of public money on the consultation:
From what I can gather:

  • The Taskforce(?) have now said the options are not workable (something about level crossings in Cheshire affecting TfW services among other things).
  • The Taskforce hasn't looked at (in any detail) the option that Transport for Greater Manchester proposed.
  • Castlefield Corridor Infrastructure works won't be ready until at least the early 2030s.
  • Metro Mayors unwilling to sign off what is effectively a reduced timetable for a decade.
  • Urgent letter to be sent to Secretary of State for Transport demanding the issue is dealt with asap (Castlefield infrastructure).
Some very unhappy leaders there, who are mostly blaming the rail industry and Secretary of State. No idea where this leaves the Taskforce, but May 2022 probably in doubt?

...NR blocked the 2nd Mid Cheshire service in 2015 citing level crossings amongst other things unless I'm mistaken

I believe it's something to do with the farm crossings between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
In which case Steer failed to do their homework properly before wasting a lot of public money on the consultation:

Except that they came up with two other options that didn't require the extra path (thus infrastructure) on the mid Cheshire.

Although minor level crossing work to mitigate risk increase are easily deliverable in timetable planning timescales. Depends what exactly is required on the mid-Cheshire (or if the TfW comes in place of the second Northern service which already runs in some peak hours

Some minor level crossong works have been seen around Cambridge in advance of May 2017 and May 2018 (e.g.the extra pedestrian signals at Chesterton and Waterbeach)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I haven’t watched the video, now do I know what came out of it, so will reserve comment until then. Other than to say that if you think it is difficult running a railway when there is political interference from Westminster, imagine what it is like trying to run a railway when there ismpolitical interference from a whole range of politicians of every political perusauion, from all over the region.


With empty wallets from consultants rather than actual planners probably

They can be both. And are in this case.

They could always instruct the Northern OLR to sort their staffing and stock issues ?

Not for May 22 they couldn’t.


TRU still hasn't been scoped.

Some of it is being built right now!
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Although minor level crossing work to mitigate risk increase are easily deliverable in timetable planning timescales. Depends what exactly is required on the mid-Cheshire (or if the TfW comes in place of the second Northern service which already runs in some peak hours
I have previously seen it suggested that the issue with the User Worked Crossings in question is not risk mitigation but a long standing legal commitment to the landowner on the number of times per day the crossings can be blocked by passing trains. But I do not have a verifiable source.
 

Rail Ranger

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2014
Messages
581
I have previously seen it suggested that the issue with the User Worked Crossings in question is not risk mitigation but a long standing legal commitment to the landowner on the number of times per day the crossings can be blocked by passing trains. But I do not have a verifiable source.
And yet any number of freight trains now use the line with the number increasing all the time.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
The likelihood of TRU involving anything more than the minimum of new build and HS2b East ever making it to Yorkshire

I have made many posts referencing my assumption that we may just see nothing more than TRU and the likelihood that the eastern branch may not be built.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
I think TRU will just be electrification (not Huddersfield-Stalybridge until the mid 2030s) and the planned quadding of Huddersfield- Dewsbury. And not a lot else. I actually hope you're the one that's right. The works at Huddersfield also bother me re whether listed building consent will be forthcoming for some of the buildings in the station. But time will tell. Trouble is Castlefield should have been solved first
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Forget TFW putting anything additional down the mid cheshire line.

They dont have the ambition, political requirement, resources or even interest in it.

It's a diversion route. Nothing more or less. It's in no way as important as some on here think.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Having done a little detective work, I think this is a classic example of politicians not understanding what they were being presented with when the consultation was initiated. There seems to be a lot of crossness that the infrastructure won’t be fit for the services they want. There were never any proposals in the consultation to resolve the infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor, the proposal was always to deliver a reliable service on the existing infrastructure. So they can’t argue about that with integrity.

Andy Burnham also chooses his words carefully. The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.

As @Ianno87 rightly points out, there will be deliverable options, but they mean that’s somebody loses out. Isn’t that what we elect politicians to do? Take the tough calls for the benefit of society as a whole?
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
I have previously seen it suggested that the issue with the User Worked Crossings in question is not risk mitigation but a long standing legal commitment to the landowner on the number of times per day the crossings can be blocked by passing trains. But I do not have a verifiable source.

Although, before more services starting running through Stockport it was commonplace for the Welsh services to divert via Altrincham if there was disruption or engineering works on the Warrington line.

In fact, didn't the North Wales to London services also used to divert via Mouldsworth?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Having done a little detective work, I think this is a classic example of politicians not understanding what they were being presented with when the consultation was initiated. There seems to be a lot of crossness that the infrastructure won’t be fit for the services they want. There were never any proposals in the consultation to resolve the infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor, the proposal was always to deliver a reliable service on the existing infrastructure. So they can’t argue about that with integrity.

Andy Burnham also chooses his words carefully. The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.

As @Ianno87 rightly points out, there will be deliverable options, but they mean that’s somebody loses out. Isn’t that what we elect politicians to do? Take the tough calls for the benefit of society as a whole?

The sensible** thing to do now would be to agree what end state is wanted, and set a timetable change date that it would be deliverable for (and just muddle through or make smaller incremental changes in the meantime)

<cynicism>
**Thus not going to happen
<\cynicism>
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Is the organisation/quango Transport for the North a partnership between the Passenger Transport Executives of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Tyne & Wear?

Or is it just Manchester and Leeds?

All northern local authorities are part of it but Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire combined authorities have the greatest influence. I think I saw Stoke City Council on the list of members as well.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Is the organisation/quango Transport for the North a partnership between the Passenger Transport Executives of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, and Tyne & Wear?

Or is it just Manchester and Leeds?

If only it were that simple. It is a collective of 20 (Twenty) local authorities across the north of England. And they all need to be happy.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
Having done a little detective work, I think this is a classic example of politicians not understanding what they were being presented with when the consultation was initiated. There seems to be a lot of crossness that the infrastructure won’t be fit for the services they want. There were never any proposals in the consultation to resolve the infrastructure on the Castlefield corridor, the proposal was always to deliver a reliable service on the existing infrastructure. So they can’t argue about that with integrity.

Andy Burnham also chooses his words carefully. The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.

As @Ianno87 rightly points out, there will be deliverable options, but they mean that’s somebody loses out. Isn’t that what we elect politicians to do? Take the tough calls for the benefit of society as a whole?
This - May 22 is simply not deliverable. The training backlog due to Covid is huge, then you've got the prospect of route learning and traction knowledge with some of the options, it's not workable. Plus there's going to be a ECML consultation soon, which is only going to stir the pot more.

Burnham's clever use of words is simply for the effect of an upcoming mayoral election. It's not him I'd be worried about with this consultation, more those in Southport/Sheffield/Lincolnshire who won't like losing their Airport service and will be as loud as possible to keep it (though they shouldnt)
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
May 22 is getting out of hand and the mistakes of May 2018 haven't been learnt. That timetable change sees alterations from Liverpool Street / Kings Cross as far as Kings Lynn / Norwich / Edinburgh / Inverness / Aberdeen as well as Liverpool and Wales in the west to Hull and Newcastle in the east. Thats a lot of changes to make to a wide swathe of the country for submission in around 6 months from now.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
May 22 is getting out of hand and the mistakes of May 2018 haven't been learnt. That timetable change sees alterations from Liverpool Street / Kings Cross as far as Kings Lynn / Norwich / Edinburgh / Inverness / Aberdeen as well as Liverpool and Wales in the west to Hull and Newcastle in the east. Thats a lot of changes to make to a wide swathe of the country for submission in around 6 months from now.

And I think that's what's (thankfully) been realised today - the level of change needed in the North isn't feasible by May 22 (in fairness the original consultation only said May 22 "at the earliest").

The ECML/West Anglia recast is (AIUI) much more advanced in its development.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Oh they have been learnt.
I hope so but it doesn't look like reading some of the recent posts here for the last couple of days.
And I think that's what's (thankfully) been realised today - the level of change needed in the North isn't feasible by May 22 (in fairness the original consultation only said May 22 "at the earliest").

The ECML/West Anglia recast is (AIUI) much more advanced in its development.
ECML / WA further forward though it was suggested (AIUI from what I have read elsewhere) that Manchester was actually in for May 22 as well and I would be concerned about the interfaces between Manchester and the ECML and any ripple effects.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Proposed Southport to Oxford Road service extended to Greenbank
That would be unreliable, especially as it has to use Castlefield.
The non-deliverability is almost certainly about timescales for May 22, given the scale of the service changes proposed. There would be lots of driver training to do, and potentially more crew required and more rolling stock (if the new timetable uses these resources less efficiently to create more recovery in the system). That’s not doable for May next year.
I thought May 2022 was supposed to be the earliest possible start date, what's with the hang up there? Seems to be a bit a feet dragging from the TOCs.
Forget TFW putting anything additional down the mid cheshire line.

They dont have the ambition, political requirement, resources or even interest in it.
The bigger problem is not if they want to run it but whether they can. Someone at the DfT didn't check to see if Civitys can fit (which they can't between Hale & Northwich).
It's in no way as important as some on here think.
Tata Chemicals Europe and Barclays may want to beg to differ with you on that.
 

Rail Ranger

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2014
Messages
581
That would be unreliable, especially as it has to use Castlefield.

I thought May 2022 was supposed to be the earliest possible start date, what's with the hang up there? Seems to be a bit a feet dragging from the TOCs.

The bigger problem is not if they want to run it but whether they can. Someone at the DfT didn't check to see if Civitys can fit (which they can't between Hale & Northwich).

Tata Chemicals Europe and Barclays may want to beg to differ with you on that.
A class 195 has run empty stock via the Mid Cheshire Line from Newton Heath to Chester and back.
 

desiro350

Member
Joined
10 Jan 2014
Messages
8
Location
Where the Southport and Ormskirk lines cross
Burnham's clever use of words is simply for the effect of an upcoming mayoral election. It's not him I'd be worried about with this consultation, more those in Southport/Sheffield/Lincolnshire who won't like losing their Airport service and will be as loud as possible to keep it (though they shouldnt)
Southport hasn't had a through service to the Airport since May 2018. It's the through service to Piccadilly that OPSTA are particularly vocal about; any timetable that doesn't include an all day service to there isn't acceptable in their eyes. Of course, they assume that every single rail user between Wigan and Southport thinks the same way they do, when in reality, the vast majority aren't fussed about which Manchester station the service runs to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top