Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[peters]

We need to reduce services to a level that they can be operated punctually now, and compensate using longer trains where necessary. The 2-car DMU on the mainline needs to end.

Which services are you referring to? Pre-COVID the only 2 car operation in the Manchester area at peak times that I'm aware of related to services which did not have enough capacity or to services which were running away from Manchester in the morning peak and towards it in the evening peak. 15 years ago there were loads of 2 car trains in the Manchester area with empty seats. Since then passenger numbers have grown (a lot) and the number of seats per train has been reduced as accessibility improvements and bike racks have been added.

I also think most of the routes which can accommodate 6 carriage trains now have 6 carriage workings. If you're proposing platform lengthening and moving signals, then that's outside the context of this study as this study relates to what can be done with existing infrastructure.

 

[Purple Orange]

Has the Road Investment Strategy been scrapped yet? While that £20+bn waste still exists, I struggle to believe any claims that the government is in dire financial straits and/or serious about tackling the climate emergency.

Profligate would be running trains at over 200mph on a route with no air competition. That HS2 station in Birmingham really needs a redesign so that XC services from Bristol and beyond can use it and continue on HS2 metals to Manchester and Leeds, thus creating a route that competes with air rather than shuttle services from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds.

Going back to Manchester, how much do people think increasing Metrolink from every 12 to every 6 minutes between Picc. and Vic. would help?

HS2 will compete with air. Anyway, back to Manchester....

 

[Glenn1969]

So when will there be an update?

 

[Purple Orange]

So when will there be an update?

Periodically.

 

[Glenn1969]

The consultation ended in March. The date for initial submission of May 22 bids is this weekend. So when will the DfT publish the outcome of the consultation? I note the initial 5 step plan said the end of April for a DfT confirmation followed by a 2nd TOC-led consultation in May. Does anyone know if these dates are still being stuck to ?

 

[Watershed]

The consultation ended in March. The date for initial submission of May 22 bids is this weekend. So when will the DfT publish the outcome of the consultation? I note the initial 5 step plan said the end of April for a DfT confirmation followed by a 2nd TOC-led consultation in May. Does anyone know if these dates are still being stuck to ?

Anyone who thinks that major changes will happen in May 22 is being (if we're charitable) "optimistic".

I think there is a chance that some services could be removed in May 22, to be replaced by others in Dec 22, but more likely all of the changes will be pencilled in for Dec 22.

 

[peters]

I think there is a chance that some services could be removed in May 22, to be replaced by others in Dec 22, but more likely all of the changes will be pencilled in for Dec 22.

Isn't that optimistic? If they go for the option which involves Buxton going back to hourly at off-peak times then I would presume Buxton will stay hourly (the level it's currently being reduced to due to COVID), rather than returning to hourly in December 2021 and then being cutback the following year. If they go for an option retaining half-hourly on the Buxton route then I can see the half-hourly service being reinstated ahead of the full recast.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Why are people getting so hung up on May 2022 when it was never set as the concrete this will happen date? It was always the proposed earliest POSSIBLE start date, not the it's definitely happening date.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm talking about the Northern part. Particularly 2b which is nowhere near getting approval. I also see NPR as a 2050 project. Sorry to be so negative but Northern railways have never been investment priorities because in the eyes of successive Governments they need too much subsidy to be worthy of investment however much the investment might be needed

Phase 2b West (ie the Manchester/Golborne leg) is on fairly firm ground in terms of route, and the NPR connections towards Liverpool are defined.
Phase 2b East (route and NPR connections) is still in the mincer, however.
I don't think you can lump both projects together.
The western side also has implications for "union connectivity", ie a route to Scotland.

 

[Jozhua]

There is little money for any of the above. The UK government is in dire financial straits post Brexit/Covid, so there is a need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. The consultation was intended to redesign services to fit pre-existing infrastructure, and this is what needs to be done. I prefer option C, but feel that it is insufficiently radical in parts in pruning services to make them workable. Hopefully, there will be no more expenditure on HS2 north of Crewe or on new lines for NPR; that would be profligate.

I don't think you understand the economics of capital expenditure.

I wrote a blog post on this, because I think it's an important topic.
jhrambles - why HS2 is actually free

Coming back to capital vs operational expenses, let’s have a look at another argument typically thrown at the project. “We can’t afford it because of COVID”.

It is likely that after the pandemic, the government will have to continue borrowing money and keep taxes low, in order to re-boost the economy off the back of a year of significant restrictions on economic and social freedoms. The only other option is to return to post-2008 era austerity, which saw very slow and uneven economic growth, something that will continue to compound existing inequalities and poverty in the country.

Currently, schemes like furlough, eat out to help out, VAT cuts, etc, are operational expenses. They offer a short term injection of cash that will be borrowed and need to be paid back at a later date, despite them not really continuing to provide value when the repayments come round. This is not to say there are not good reasons behind them, many of these schemes have saved millions from hardship during this time, but they are certainly a long term headache.

However, investment in infrastructure is a capital expense. Not only do they provide a short term injection of cash during construction, the projects continue to provide value when the repayments come around. Projects like HS2 are a great way to secure growth, while also not leaving onerous repayments for schemes who’s value has long expired.

This is why post Brexit and Covid, investment in infrastructure and other capital projects is more vital than ever.

Research into how it's actually funded.

Basically.

Ultimately, if we're not doing anything ridiculous and it will have a net positive cost/benefit in terms of economic and societal returns, we should build it. The only limit is skilled workforce capable of doing it, but with proper long term planning, that can be easily resolved.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Department for Transport now saying that it is not true that none of the three options from the Manchester Recovery Task Force are deliverable: Rail passengers could be stuck with reduced timetables 'for a decade' amid Manchester's crumbling infrastructure - Manchester Evening News

 

[Purple Orange]

Department for Transport now saying that it is not true that none of the three options from the Manchester Recovery Task Force are deliverable: Rail passengers could be stuck with reduced timetables 'for a decade' amid Manchester's crumbling infrastructure - Manchester Evening News

Given it is the Manchester Evening News website, I won’t bother clicking the link. But that suggests there is at least 1 workable solution!

 

[Glenn1969]

The article was actually about Andy Burnham and a repeat of his earlier comments at the launch of his Mayoral manifesto. Nothing new there

 

[Rail Ranger]

The new information is in the comment from the DfT at the end.

 

[Glenn1969]

But it doesn't actually confirm anything

 

[Purple Orange]

Glenn, if a 12 week pregnant woman told you she was having a baby, something tells me you’d respond saying “I’ll believe it when I see it”.

 

[Jozhua]

Glenn, if a 12 week pregnant woman told you she was having a baby, something tells me you’d respond saying “I’ll believe it when I see it”.

To be fair, this is the conservatives, so they keep getting pregnant, waiting until 20 weeks and then running to the abortion clinic...not before spending millions/billions of pounds on a set of giant gender reveal fireworks, baby clothes, toys and redecorating the 2nd bedroom. Cycle repeats approximately every five years.

 

[daodao]

I don't think you understand the economics of capital expenditure.

Invest to save is worthwhile if the capital investment provides something of real use that will reduce future running costs.

IMO, that is not true of HS2b, because the likely traffic levels on the segments north of Crewe, and the eastern leg, don't merit this degree of capital expenditure. There is also a major question mark over the non-green credentials of very high speed rail in terms of energy consumption to build and run it.

What is needed now is a solution to maximise the working effectiveness of Manchester's existing rail infrastructure. There is a need to choose one of the options in the recent consultation, tweak it to remove any particular issues that have come to light, and implement it asap.

The western side also has implications for "union connectivity", ie a route to Scotland.

This doesn't matter, as there'll be an independent republic of Scotland (as well as Irish re-unification) ere long.

 

[Ianno87]

IMO, that is not true of HS2b, because the likely traffic levels on the segments north of Crewe, and the eastern leg, don't merit this degree of capital expenditure.

That section of Phase 2b is as much about stimulating development and regeneration around the stations in Manchester (Airport and Piccadilly) as it is about capacity - it's the wider benefits that Phase 2b is about.

There is also a major question mark over the non-green credentials of very high speed rail in terms of energy consumption to build and run it.

No there isn't. The "120 years to be carbon neutral" claim has been throughly de-bunked (as the original work done by HS2 basically took a cautious approach and ignored the benefits of released capacity etc on the existing network). In any case, it is better carbon-wise than the alternative of doing nothing g, or building more roads.

 

[Purple Orange]

This will they or won’t they thing with HS2 is dull. At every stage people who are against the project keep dropping in the same posts time and time again, despite the issue being raised has been addressed time and time again too.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What is needed now is a solution to maximise the working effectiveness of Manchester's existing rail infrastructure. There is a need to choose one of the options in the recent consultation, tweak it to remove any particular issues that have come to light, and implement it asap.

So, is there the capacity on the existing Metrolink infrastructure to provide a six-minute (or, better yet, three-minute) interval tram service between Victoria and Piccadilly, perhaps by diverting the Airport-Victoria trams via Exchange Square instead of Market Street?

 

[daodao]

That section of Phase 2b is as much about stimulating development and regeneration around the stations in Manchester (Airport and Piccadilly) as it is about capacity

There is no need for HS2 phase 2b to stimulate development and regeneration around the proposed station for Manchester Airport (which is actually on the edge of Hale Barns) or around Piccadilly. There is plenty of development in these areas already.

So, is there the capacity on the existing Metrolink infrastructure to provide a six-minute (or, better yet, three-minute) interval tram service between Victoria and Piccadilly, perhaps by diverting the Airport-Victoria trams via Exchange Square instead of Market Street?

There may be capacity on the line itself, but at present there would probably be issues with terminating more tram services at both Victoria and especially Piccadilly.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is no need for HS2 phase 2b to stimulate development and regeneration around the proposed station for Manchester Airport. There is plenty of development in this area already.

It perpetuates development, but the type of development we are talking about here is not just old mill conversions but rather new build offices alongside residential schemes, attracting companies to open offices and create jobs in Manchester.

 

[daodao]

It perpetuates development, but the type of development we are talking about here is not just old mill conversions but rather new build offices alongside residential schemes, attracting companies to open offices and create jobs in Manchester.

Investment for regeneration and development in Greater Manchester should be focussed on the more deprived boroughs, such as Oldham/Rochdale/Tameside, not on Central Manchester or the Ringway/Hale Barns area.

In any case, increasing local rail/other traffic to central Manchester should not be encouraged when the existing infrastructure cannot cope.

 

[Purple Orange]

So, is there the capacity on the existing Metrolink infrastructure to provide a six-minute (or, better yet, three-minute) interval tram service between Victoria and Piccadilly, perhaps by diverting the Airport-Victoria trams via Exchange Square instead of Market Street?

As it happens yes, certainly for a 10 tram per hour operation. If you look at the current network, it is set up to accommodate metro link extensions within the capacity capabilities of the city centre. That includes a 3rd city crossing from Salford Central to St. Peter’s Sq, extensions to Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill, extension of a branch from the Bury line to Middleton and increasing frequency from the Trafford Centre through the city centre (rather than terminate at Cornbrook).

 

[daodao]

As it happens yes, certainly for a 10 tram per hour operation. If you look at the current network, it is set up to accommodate metro link extensions within the capacity capabilities of the city centre. That includes a 3rd city crossing from Salford Central to St. Peter’s Sq, extensions to Glossop & Hadfield and Rose Hill, extension of a branch from the Bury line to Middleton and increasing frequency from the Trafford Centre through the city centre (rather than terminate at Cornbrook).

I agree, but only once such extensions are built. Currently, there would be issues with terminating capacity at both Victoria and Piccadilly.

In addition, if/when a Metrolink extension to Rose Hill is built, more Standedge line trains could be diverted to the ex-GC platforms at Piccadilly, relieving pressure on Victoria and the Castlefield line. However, none of this solves the immediate issues with Manchester's rail services, which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Purple Orange]

Investment for regeneration and development in Greater Manchester should be focussed on the more deprived boroughs, such as Oldham/Rochdale/Tameside, not on Central Manchester or the Ringway/Hale Barns area.

Create jobs, jobs, and more jobs. That is the name of the game. Th city centre (and the airport) plays a big role in that. Greater
Manchester has changed a lot, becoming more homogeneous as one metropolis, with activity focussed on central Manchester. Cities the world over have evolved in this way, and Manchester needs to be doan not the same.

I agree, but only once such extensions are built. Currently, there would be issues with terminating capacity at both Victoria and Piccadilly.

You wouldn’t terminate any tram at Piccadilly or Victoria. As it stands 10 trams terminate at Piccadilly each hour. Those services can be extended to Glossop/Hadfield (5 tph). And Rose Hill (5 tph). There are 5 tph that terminates at Victoria today, of which they could be extended to Middleton. 5 tph from Eccles/Media City can be routed through Salford Central, in conjunction with 5 tph from the Atherton line, which can then be married up with 10 tph from Deansgate/Castlefield.

To enable this to happen, of the 25 tph Victoria sees, 15 would head towards Deansgate Castlefield and 10 towards Piccadilly. Piccadilly would have 10 tph towards Deansgate-Castlefield too, which when married up with the Salford Central line would see 35 tph run through towards St.Peters Sq, Deansgate & Cornbrook, as it does today.

 

[Rail Ranger]

So, is there the capacity on the existing Metrolink infrastructure to provide a six-minute (or, better yet, three-minute) interval tram service between Victoria and Piccadilly, perhaps by diverting the Airport-Victoria trams via Exchange Square instead of Market Street?

It would have been useful if two reversing sidings had been provided east of Piccadilly station when the Ashton line was built. If the Altrincham service is extended to Rose Hill that would provide capacity for the service from Rochdale to reverse at Piccadilly station, providing a second service every 12 minutes between Victoria and Piccadilly.

 

[daodao]

With regard to your point of it not being radical enough, excuse me if I've missed it above, what do you propose as an "option C+" that takes into account the "can't add a second Mid Cheshire train" constraint?

While I have a number of suggestions to make option C more workable, they don't belong in this non-speculative thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I have a number of suggestions to make option C more workable, they don't belong in this non-speculative thread.

Good point, could you perhaps suggest them over in the speculative thread (We need to talk about Castlefield) so we can discuss them?