Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Andyh82]

Sounds to me they are just playing a political game

Sign off on any version of the revised timetable - any area getting a worse service is directly the fault of Burnham and the council leaders for signing it off

Carry on with current timetable - unreliable service is seen by the public as the fault of the Westminster government for not investing in the North, and the train operator for running an unreliable service

Therefore and particularly with local elections coming up, the second option is much more preferable to them

 

[peters]

The North Wales service could always be diverted (as an extra service) to Crewe to give a Piccadilly/Airport connection from there (which can be almost just as fast with a decent connection)

It's been reported a Northwich to Crewe shuttle is not possible pre-HS2 due to pathing constraints at Crewe, so I'm guessing your proposed idea would get rejected for the same reason.

 

[HST43257]

I don’t see the big issue with a 2tph Leeds to Llandudno service. Change crews at Chester or Man Vic, or somewhere else if more convenient. TfW can hire in some 158s from Northern to cover the Manchester to Leeds bit. It doesn’t have to be too complicated, does it?

 

[Ianno87]

I don’t see the big issue with a 2tph Leeds to Llandudno service. Change crews at Chester or Man Vic, or somewhere else if more convenient. TfW can hire in some 158s from Northern to cover the Manchester to Leeds bit. It doesn’t have to be too complicated, does it?

The risk of changing crews in through platforms at somewhere like Vic is part of the problem. Plus long, straggly through trains joining constrained routes (e.g. something coming from as far as Llandudno needing to hit its path on the Calder Valley or else fall behind a stopper)

 

[HST43257]

The risk of changing crews in through platforms at somewhere like Vic is part of the problem.

Somewhere else then. NLW? Warrington? Chester?

Plus long, straggly through trains joining constrained routes (e.g. something coming from as far as Llandudno needing to hit its path on the Calder Valley or else fall behind a stopper)

I’m sure there’s ways and means to make it work, whether this may be through a kind run between Llandudno and Warrington, or a slightly flexible path along the Calder valley.

 

[Ianno87]

Somewhere else then. NLW? Warrington? Chester?

Keep it simple, Thameslink style. Start at Chester, finish at Leeds, then return.

I’m sure there’s ways and means to make it work, whether this may be through a kind run between Llandudno and Warrington, or a slightly flexible path along the Calder valley.

"Flexible path" and "Calder Valley" are mutually exclusive with the mix of stopping patterns (and freight) along there.

 

[krus_aragon]

I’m sure there’s ways and means to make it work, whether this may be through a kind run between Llandudno and Warrington, or a slightly flexible path along the Calder valley.

Probably, but it'll be at the expense of some other service around Manchester. Some might say that the "I'm sure there's a way" approach led to the current Castlefield situation.

p.s. TfW plan (or did pre-Covid) to change Llandudno-Manchester services to operate from Bangor as of December 2022, with Llandudno services operating to Liverpool.

 

[Glenn1969]

The current Castlefield situation imho was caused by the Castlefield TWAO being Graylinged in 2015. The 2018 timetable farce didn't help but there isn't a lot you can do when the infrastructure is inadequate. IMHO Piccadilly has never had enough through platforms and reversing in and out of the main shed does cause operational challenges

But we are where we are. And the trouble is ALL corridors want access to Castlefield

 

[Ianno87]

The current Castlefield situation imho was caused by the Castlefield TWAO being Graylinged in 2015. The 2018 timetable farce didn't help but there isn't a lot you can do when the infrastructure is inadequate. IMHO Piccadilly has never had enough through platforms and reversing in and out of the main shed does cause operational challenges

But we are where we are. And the trouble is ALL corridors want access to Castlefield

The trouble is that in 2018 not enough difficult choices were made for use of the corridor and the resulting service tried to please everybody (with more trains than the corridor could handle).

What should've happened is one of Options A, B or C should have been implemented in 2018.

 

[PR1Berske]

What should've happened is one of Options A, B or C should have been implemented in 2018.

Agree!

 

[SuperNova]

I don’t see the big issue with a 2tph Leeds to Llandudno service. Change crews at Chester or Man Vic, or somewhere else if more convenient. TfW can hire in some 158s from Northern to cover the Manchester to Leeds bit. It doesn’t have to be too complicated, does it?

And who is going to drive those services? TfW would need to hire drivers, who then need route knowledge. Similarly, guards need knowledge too.
Northern don't have 158s to simply give over to TfW.
Longer distance journeys significantly increase opportunities for delay, this just passes on the risk to Calder Valley and decreases reliability.
TPE services will be using Calder Valley when TRU finally, where's the capacity?

 

[Purple Orange]

Does anyone know of there is a deadline (vague or defined) that the DfT will take a decision on one of the three options and impose a new timetable?

 

[Glenn1969]

I thought it was the end of April but under current circumstances (after yesterday's events) am not sure now

 

[Starmill]

I don’t see the big issue with a 2tph Leeds to Llandudno service. Change crews at Chester or Man Vic, or somewhere else if more convenient. TfW can hire in some 158s from Northern to cover the Manchester to Leeds bit. It doesn’t have to be too complicated, does it?

It would be a simple, workable, practical and efficient solution... if that had been the long term plan, the resources for it were in place, and all stakeholders were onboard with it. Alas we have zero out of three on that count. One of the TPE consultation options was for Holyhead to North TP, which I think would have been better than Manchester Airport, but alas the Welsh Government didn't want to lose control of the path.

Does anyone know of there is a deadline (vague or defined) that the DfT will take a decision on one of the three options and impose a new timetable?

They can't impose any of the options without funding the resources to provide them.

 

[peters]

The trouble is that in 2018 not enough difficult choices were made for use of the corridor and the resulting service tried to please everybody (with more trains than the corridor could handle).

What should've happened is one of Options A, B or C should have been implemented in 2018.

One of the problems with the 2018 change is Northern didn't have enough resources to implement all of the changes they were supposed to so they did a pick n mix with them to suit their operational needs, rather than looking for the best compromise from a passenger or reliability prospective.

 

[Glenn1969]

Unfortunately, given that the task force explicitly ruled out do nothing as an option, that's precisely what I think they will do because they are still trying to sort Castlefield on the cheap. I still think if it was London the Castlefield TWAO would have been approved and funded but the Tories and others have never viewed the North as worthy of investment because of the level of subsidy required by Northern Rail

 

[Rhydgaled]

Crazy ideas like TfW running to Leeds are the cause of the problem we now find ourselves in with this consultation. TfW won't have adequate rolling stock to run through to Leeds, nor train crews who sign the route. Who's going to pay for that to be solved and how long will it take?

Silos, silos, silos. Franchising has a lot to answer for. This sort of thing wouldn't be a crazy idea if we had one GB-wide operator. If there is a train from Redcar to Manchester Airport via the Ordsall chord and another from north Wales to Stalybridge (as proposed in one of the options) then there is sufficient rolling stock to combine the two services into a north Wales to Redcar service. If anything slightly less stock would be required since you would be running only one train between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge instead of two and removing a train between Manchester Victoria and the airport. You may have problems with the mix of very different types of train used and traction knowledge, but it should be doable. Even within the franchise system, you can have crews who sign the route operating other TOC's units (eg. Northern/ScotRail Newcastle-Carlisle-Glasgow).

If they terminate at Vic, they're still in Manchester. Connections via Metrolink to Picc and beyond don't make it so bad that it's unworkable, it's not like London terminals where there are significant distances in some cases. If it boils down to Piccadilly being the "main" station and nothing else, that's not much of a valid reason.

If I hadn't run out of time and missed the consultation deadline, I would have tried to fit in a suggestion that the frequency of Metrolink between Victoria and Piccadilly should be increased and tickets to 'Manchester Stations' being valid on Metrolink between the two. Currently I think there is only a tram every 12 minutes - if that could be improved to every 6 minutes it could make arrival at the 'wrong' Manchester terminal less of an issue.

The current Castlefield situation imho was caused by the Castlefield TWAO being Graylinged in 2015. The 2018 timetable farce didn't help but there isn't a lot you can do when the infrastructure is inadequate. IMHO Piccadilly has never had enough through platforms and reversing in and out of the main shed does cause operational challenges

Agreed, the four through platforms are needed.

 

[nr758123]

Andy Burnham also chooses his words carefully.

As he should. As we all should.

But do we know what he has actually said on this occasion, as opposed to someone else's interpretation of what he has said in private.

 

[Purple Orange]

They can't impose any of the options without funding the resources to provide them.

I don’t recall any statements made about the required funding to implement any of the options. It wasn’t in the consultation as I recall, unless I am mistaken of course. The whole point, as I understood, was to develop a timetable that would fit with the current infrastructure and work with the limitations of the network today.

 

[peters]

This sort of thing wouldn't be a crazy idea if we had one GB-wide operator. If there is a train from Redcar to Manchester Airport via the Ordsall chord and another from north Wales to Stalybridge (as proposed in one of the options) then there is sufficient rolling stock to combine the two services into a north Wales to Redcar service.

That would create difficulties in getting from South Manchester to West Yorkshire if combined with GMCA's proposal of Newcastle services terminating at Victoria to allow a Hazel Grove to Wigan service. One way of resolving that would be Redcar to North Wales via the Ordsall Chord and Stockport but that then that involves going via Mouldsworth where apparently one of the issues with the original option C is. The other could be a Stockport to Leeds via Denton service, which would need additional trains and paths.

I think someone in Westminster needs to be firm with the Welsh and Scottish assemblies and needs to say if you want to run services wholly within your own country then that's fine but if you want them to go beyond the first interchange point in England (e.g. Chester, Hereford etc.) then a British franchise needs to operate them. Then the Welsh government have a choice of Bangor to Chester which they have full control over or Bangor to somewhere beyond Chester under Northern/TPE which they can have input into.

 

[Glenn1969]

That's because they were trying to solve the problem without spending very much money on doing it. Just my view. Unfortuntately in this case I don't think you can. They forgot about the need for stock and driver training etc

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I thought it was the end of April but under current circumstances (after yesterday's events) am not sure now

How can an extension be granted, considering the amount of time that was allocated to the consultation period?

 

[Purple Orange]

That's because they were trying to solve the problem without spending very much money on doing it. Just my view. Unfortuntately in this case I don't think you can. They forgot about the need for stock and driver training etc

Typical of this government to not look at the details.

 

[peters]

Why is there an obsession with wanting 2tph Chester-Vic when this is a totally new service? One would be fine, in the opposite half hour to the TfW.

I think the objective behind option C is a consistent clockface timetable, so half-hourly Chester to Leeds fits with that idea but North Wales to Manchester Airport with a different calling pattern does not.

They can't impose any of the options without funding the resources to provide them.

Thinking about the previously proposed recasts (which had rolling stock allocated in the form of new and cascaded trains.)

For Northern an additional Chester to Victoria doesn't need more trains than an additional Greenbank to Manchester.

For TFW Rail diverting trains to Piccadilly via Altrincham doesn't require more trains than running them to Manchester Airport via Warrington.

Arriva planned to run additional hourly Macclesfield and Hazel Grove services, so electric trains planned to be used on those services should be available.

Some cutbacks are planned e.g. Oxford Rd to Lime Street stoppers going hourly with the 'semi-fast' calling at more services, that will require fewer units allowing more to be used elsewhere.

I get that the trains intended for the Mid-Cheshire may have been Sprinters, which then might not be the right trains for Chester to Leeds but the overall number of carriages should add up.

 

[Manutd1999]

And who is going to drive those services? TfW would need to hire drivers, who then need route knowledge. Similarly, guards need knowledge too.
Northern don't have 158s to simply give over to TfW.
Longer distance journeys significantly increase opportunities for delay, this just passes on the risk to Calder Valley and decreases reliability.
TPE services will be using Calder Valley when TRU finally, where's the capacity?

There wouldn't be any increase in Calder Valley capacity required vs Option C. There would still be 2x Leeds-Bradford-Manchester-Chester, one of which (or even both, as others have suggested) continues to North Wales. None of this will be implemented until at least 2022, so there is time to hire and train drivers. The requirements for Northern would actually be reduced (1x Leeds-Chester transferred to TfW), so that gives some flexibility. And as others have said, crew changes could also be considered.

It's maybe not the ideal solution, but if it allows Option C to be implemented I think it is worth it.

But you have to get past the Welsh/Chester lobby for airport trains first.

True, but at some point the rail operators/politicians et al. have to take a stand and accept that not everybody can be pleased. The reality is a Chester-Warrington-Castlefield-Airport route is incredibly inefficient, both operationally and geographically. Chester to Manchester Airport is a 45 min drive, whereas the train takes closer to 90 minutes. A shuttle bus from Chester would be much simpler

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Chester to Manchester Airport is a 45 min drive, whereas the train takes closer to 90 minutes. A shuttle bus from Chester would be much simpler

The M56 has made a much easier journey for motorists to contemplate and there are link roads leading into Manchester Airport from it.

 

[Ianno87]

One of the problems with the 2018 change is Northern didn't have enough resources to implement all of the changes they were supposed to so they did a pick n mix with them to suit their operational needs, rather than looking for the best compromise from a passenger or reliability prospective.

Well, that was the problem with the initial introduction, and the late delivery of Bolton electrification, and has been playing "catch up" ever since.

However, even with enough fleet and resources, the timetable pattern (in number of trains) isn't stable.

 

[Starmill]

I don’t recall any statements made about the required funding to implement any of the options. It wasn’t in the consultation as I recall, unless I am mistaken of course. The whole point, as I understood, was to develop a timetable that would fit with the current infrastructure and work with the limitations of the network today.

Indeed! We've answered that question now and there is likely some version of options B and C that can be considered meeting the needs of the timetable. Unfortunately, nobody has been asked to come up with the way to resource that timetable, so now we couldn't run it even if we wanted to. I think that the Department blithely assumed that, if no infrastructure interventions are required, current operational funding or resources would be sufficient to make any of the options feasible.

There wouldn't be any increase in Calder Valley capacity required vs Option C. There would still be 2x Leeds-Bradford-Manchester-Chester, one of which (or even both, as others have suggested) continues to North Wales. None of this will be implemented until at least 2022, so there is time to hire and train drivers. The requirements for Northern would actually be reduced (1x Leeds-Chester transferred to TfW), so that gives some flexibility. And as others have said, crew changes could also be considered.

It's maybe not the ideal solution, but if it allows Option C to be implemented I think it is worth it.



True, but at some point the rail operators/politicians et al. have to take a stand and accept that not everybody can be pleased. The reality is a Chester-Warrington-Castlefield-Airport route is incredibly inefficient, both operationally and geographically. Chester to Manchester Airport is a 45 min drive, whereas the train takes closer to 90 minutes. A shuttle bus from Chester would be much simpler

I agree very much that an integrated public transport system would almost certainly provide a coach service from Chester to Manchester Airport, and maybe with an intermediate call at Runcorn, another location which has very easy road access and rather poor rail access to said airport. However, we don't have an integrated public transport system, and the market from those two places is likely too small for rail and coach to compete with one another.

 

[Watershed]

Silos, silos, silos. Franchising has a lot to answer for. This sort of thing wouldn't be a crazy idea if we had one GB-wide operator.

Indeed it wouldn't, but we are where we are. In many ways the devolution of franchising has caused more silos here!

If there is a train from Redcar to Manchester Airport via the Ordsall chord and another from north Wales to Stalybridge (as proposed in one of the options) then there is sufficient rolling stock to combine the two services into a north Wales to Redcar service.

I can see where you are coming from, but you have to consider that the majority of North Wales services are 2 or 3 car 175s, whilst the majority of Redcar services are doubled up 3 car 185s. It doesn't take a genius to work out that that's going to cause problems, since the two classes cannot be coupled to each other.

You'd probably end up with very complicated (read: risky) arrangements for splitting and joining at Manchester Victoria, Chester or York to make sure there was sufficient capacity on peak services. It's just unworkable in practice.

The service would also need a significant amount of padding throughout the journey (probably at the above intermediate stations) to ensure a vaguely acceptable level of performance, along with very long turnarounds. In short it's a recipe for disaster, what with that service crossing the WCML and ECML on the flat...

You may have problems with the mix of very different types of train used and traction knowledge, but it should be doable

Several depots have just a handful of jobs on the two services at present (Holyhead, Scarborough etc.). If the services were split between 175s and 185s, you'd end up with some very inefficient arrangements to ensure everyone kept traction knowledge of both fleets.

The number of drivers and guards to be trained would probably be in excess of 1000 in total, so it's a major exercise and not exactly the kind of thing you want to be embarking on at the moment.

Even within the franchise system, you can have crews who sign the route operating other TOC's units (eg. Northern/ScotRail Newcastle-Carlisle-Glasgow).

Yes, this isn't by any means impossible if the outcome of the Taskforce is that traditional TOC boundaries need to be crossed, e.g. if the TfW service were extended to Leeds via the Calder Valley (in lieu of a second Chester-Leeds).

However, an outcome requiring such arrangements seems unlikely in itself!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can see where you are coming from, but you have to consider that the majority of North Wales services are 2 or 3 car 175s, whilst the majority of Redcar services are doubled up 3 car 185s. It doesn't take a genius to work out that that's going to cause problems, since the two classes cannot be coupled to each other.

You'd probably end up with very complicated (read: risky) arrangements for splitting and joining at Manchester Victoria, Chester or York to make sure there was sufficient capacity on peak services. It's just unworkable in practice.

I was thinking it would be a few years before you could implement anything by which point I was assuming 197s and 802s rather than 185s and 175s; the 802s I'm assuming wouldn't be a problem but the 197s (which I assume TfW intend to be 3 or 4 coaches on Manchester runs) could well be a major problem in more than one respect, capacity being one of them.

The service would also need a significant amount of padding throughout the journey (probably at the above intermediate stations) to ensure a vaguely acceptable level of performance, along with very long turnarounds. In short it's a recipe for disaster, what with that service crossing the WCML and ECML on the flat...

The existing seperate services already cross the WCML/ECML on the flat - so how much does combining them into a single through service increase the performance risk? And does that outway the reduced performance risk that you get by diverting the Redcar service away from Castlefield? The track layout in the Manchester area means that it is logical for trains from Chester via Warrington Bank Quay to be routed through Victoria and on towards Stalybridge; but Stalybridge is a bit of a random endpoint for an inter-regional service and the most logical terminus beyond there for a north Wales service is Leeds. A fast service to Leeds might be a nice carrot for TfW to make up for losing the airport service. But you wouldn't want to add a TfW service to the TPE core so you end up having to replace a TPE service, I just picked Redcar out but it could easily be a Hull service (except that Redcar also gives the bonus of a direct service to York if Leeds isn't enough of a carrot to pursade TfW to give up on the airport).