• 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.

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Can the TfW (or indeed the proposed Northern replacement service which is only an extra Chester-Manchester) be pathed into Victoria ?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RHolmes

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2019
Messages
566
So if the TfW goes to Victoria and has the same stopping pattern as the current Northern 'fast' service (50 mins), passengers from North Wales would actually gain a 10-minute reduction in journey time to Manchester. Surely this is the best all-round option?

But then where does it go from Victoria? There’s no room to terminate.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Can the TfW (or indeed the proposed Northern replacement service which is only an extra Chester-Manchester) be pathed into Victoria ?

That would be Option A in the consultation (where it goes to Stalybridge) with the consequences on all other services this would require if this is the tail to wag the dog.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
249
Location
UK
It would work as part of Option C also, replacing one of the two planned Chester-Victoria services. After Victoria, it could continue to Stalybridge. Terminating the 2x Southport services + 1x TfW at Stalybridge should be do-able?

If one of the Chester-Manchester-Leeds is essentially split at Manchester, the Manchester-Leeds portion could start from the bay platforms at Victoria.
 
Last edited:

Dspatula

Member
Joined
19 Dec 2019
Messages
113
Location
Manchester
Chester towards Stalybridge is pretty easy you end up with 48 past the hour arrival at Victoria slotting nicely into the current Southport Stalybridge departure at 52 past, arriving at Stalybridge at 6 past.

Returning to Chester is little tougher you’d have to take the Southport’s path back to Victoria. The brave version would depart Stalybridge for Chester at 30 past the hour, Victoria at 46 past, Warrington Bank Quay at 18 past and arrive at Chester for 46 past. So 60 minutes Manchester to Chester with the normal stops between.

E.g. Stalybridge 9:30, Ashton 9:34, Manchester Victoria 9:46, Newton le Willows 10:04, Earlestown 10:09 Warrington Bank Quay, 10:18, Runcorn East 10:25, Frodsham 10:29, Helsby 10:33 and Chester 10:46.

The less brave would Stalybridge 31, Victoria 48, then wait for time normal time at Warrington Bank Quay due to conflict with the London train. Around 65 minutes Manchester to Chester but maintains to current connection from the Glasgow train.

E.g. Stalybridge 9:31, Ashton 9:35, Manchester Victoria 9:48, Newton le Willows 10:06, Earlestown 10:11 Warrington Bank Quay, 10:26, Runcorn East 10:33, Frodsham 10:37, Helsby 10:41 and Chester 10:53.

Both Chester returns conflict with the Manchester Cumbria train but that’s moving to via Bolton anyway so shouldn’t be a problem, there may also be a conflict with freight trains from Liverpool to the west coast mainline and there’s probably other stuff I’ve missed.

And having just worked this out I've noticed that both bays at Stalybridge are accessible from Victoria so the normal timing might well be possible towards Chester as well.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
And having just worked this out I've noticed that both bays at Stalybridge are accessible from Victoria so the normal timing might well be possible towards Chester as well.
Yes, however going into platform 2 from the Victoria side is a conflicting move with everything else at the west end of Stalybridge except things from platform 1 towards Guide Bridge. So platform 5 is often going to be better, albeit it's then a conflict with Victoria arrivals upon departure.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
249
Location
UK
Both Chester returns conflict with the Manchester Cumbria train but that’s moving to via Bolton anyway so shouldn’t be a problem, there may also be a conflict with freight trains from Liverpool to the west coast mainline and there’s probably other stuff I’ve missed.
Any of the proposed options (Except perhaps Option A) would require significant timetable alterations and maybe some re-casting, so I don't think the minutae of potential conflicts are necessarily the issue. It's more of a general feasibility study at this stage.

Re-routing the TfW to Stalybridge to avoid issues with the Mid-Cheshire line, whilst keeping the other aspects of Option C more or less unchanged, really does seem like the best option IMO.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Re-routing the TfW to Stalybridge to avoid issues with the Mid-Cheshire line, whilst keeping the other aspects of Option C more or less unchanged, really does seem like the best option IMO.
I do not think it is feasible to terminate both Southport trains at Stalybridge as well as the TfW. This is why Option A terminates one of the Southport services at Victoria, as does Option B (which has the Northern Chester service terminating at Stalybridge instead of the TfW).

Each option is an integrated package of timetable changes. Attempting to mix and match bits of different options would likely cause timing conflicts.
It would of course need route learning for TfW crew
Indeed, and it would be a challenge for TfW crews to acquire Ordsall Lane to Stalybridge route knowledge on top of the training needed for the new TfW trains. I suspect this might rule out Option A for implementation in May 2022.

Option B keeps the TfW service on its existing route through Castlefield to the Airport, so I think the Task Force might prefer Option B, rather than A, as the fallback, if the issues with Option C cannot be resolved.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,904
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Re-routing the TfW to Stalybridge to avoid issues with the Mid-Cheshire line, whilst keeping the other aspects of Option C more or less unchanged, really does seem like the best option IMO.

I agree that Option C is probably the best option, and that to make it workable, the TfW train needs to be removed from the Mid Cheshire line. However, diverting it to Manchester Victoria creates other perturbations, and each of the options (A/B/C) needs to be viewed as a carefully proposed integrated whole. One solution (and probably the simplest, as it doesn't disrupt the rest of option C) would be to divert the TfW service at Chester to run to Crewe in lieu of the TfW Chester to Crewe shuttle. Connections to Manchester and Leeds would be available at Chester and to Manchester Airport at Crewe. Frankly, rail is not competitive with road for journeys from Manchester and its Airport to North Wales because of the directness and speed of the M56/A494/A55 link. For example, it only takes 80 minutes to drive from my home to Bodnant Gardens, providing that there is no traffic congestion.
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It would work as part of Option C also, replacing one of the two planned Chester-Victoria services. After Victoria, it could continue to Stalybridge. Terminating the 2x Southport services + 1x TfW at Stalybridge should be do-able?

If one of the Chester-Manchester-Leeds is essentially split at Manchester, the Manchester-Leeds portion could start from the bay platforms at Victoria.


Once again for those at the back, are you able to prove these adjustments to Option C are actually timetable-able? "Should be do-able" doesn't cut it in an area such as Central Manchester with many inter-dependencies between the timings of all services.

A/B/C as they are have been proven to be timetable-able as a whole, and it's one of these that needs to be run with.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,805
Location
Sheffield
Frankly, rail is not competitive with road for journeys from Manchester and its Airport to North Wales because of the directness and speed of the M56/A494/A55 link. For example, it only takes 80 minutes to drive from my home to Bodnant Gardens, providing that there is no traffic congestion.
And that helps to explain why so few journeys are made by rail. Maybe a few visitors to Bodnant may visit by rail and bus from Llandidno, walk or get a taxi for the final leg but the vast majority arrive by car or on a coach trip.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,904
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Once again for those at the back, are you able to prove these adjustments to Option C are actually timetable-able? "Should be do-able" doesn't cut it in an area such as Central Manchester with many inter-dependencies between the timings of all services.

A/B/C as they are have been proven to be timetable-able as a whole, and it's one of these that needs to be run with.
The discussion has arisen because option C, which many perceive as the best of the 3 overall, is not workable as it stands because of overlooked problems with the mid Cheshire line. I agree that tweaking the options (A/B/C) could cause problems, as each should be viewed as a whole. However, my suggestion (above) to divert the TfW service to Crewe doesn't disrupt the rest of option C and solves the problem with the mid Cheshire line.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The discussion has arisen because option C, which many perceive as the best of the 3 overall, is not workable as it stands because of overlooked problems with the mid Cheshire line. I agree that tweaking the options (A/B/C) could cause problems, as each should be viewed as a whole. However, my suggestion (above) to divert the TfW service to Crewe doesn't disrupt the rest of option C and solves the problem with the mid Cheshire line.

Of course Timetable-able ≠ workable. Timetable-ability is only Step 1 (although A and B could be workable with enough time and money thrown at the train crew issues).

At this point, Option C with diversion/removal of the TfW service may be the only show in town. And one that, as a whole, makes best use of the North West network in connectivity terms (but at the expense of direct North Wales-Manchester. Yes I know that will upset a few people. Any workable option is going to upset somebody somewhere). The only other alternative is kicking the can down the road and North West Rail users having a perpetually poor performing rail service.
 

Hey 3

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
329
Location
Manchester, UK
I believe the Cumbria service should run via Chat Moss and Wigan NW(if not the Blackpool or Anglo-Scot) to give Golborne a service for when it opens (Avanti also chipping in possibly) so all three options are horrible for Golborne and the Leigh constiucency case for the station.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I believe the Cumbria service should run via Chat Moss and Wigan NW(if not the Blackpool or Anglo-Scot) to give Golborne a service for when it opens (Avanti also chipping in possibly) so all three options are horrible for Golborne and the Leigh constiucency case for the station.

Again, another tail that should not be wagging the dog.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,904
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I believe the Cumbria service should run via Chat Moss and Wigan NW(if not the Blackpool or Anglo-Scot) to give Golborne a service for when it opens (Avanti also chipping in possibly) so all three options are horrible for Golborne and the Leigh constiucency case for the station.
Opening a station at Golborne is off topic. It is not part of the consultation proposals and would foul up existing and proposed services on both the WCML and Chat Moss line. Running all day services from Preston/Wigan NW to Manchester via Chat Moss is not included in any of the 3 options on the table.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Again, another tail that should not be wagging the dog.

A little pet hate of mine on this forum is the phrase “tail wagging the dog”. It’s used frequently by many people in what mostly appears to be an attempt to say “I disagree” and then shut down the debate. Just as bad is “that is the tail wagging the dog, what should happen is ABC”

Please, if you’re going to use that phrase, at least give a reason as to why you disagree...

...why shouldn’t the Cumbria services go via Wigan and call at Golborne?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,835
I believe the Cumbria service should run via Chat Moss and Wigan NW(if not the Blackpool or Anglo-Scot) to give Golborne a service for when it opens (Avanti also chipping in possibly) so all three options are horrible for Golborne and the Leigh constiucency case for the station.
Are you suggesting that Avanti call at a re-opened Golborne?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
A little pet hate of mine on this forum is the phrase “tail wagging the dog”. It’s used frequently by many people in what mostly appears to be an attempt to say “I disagree” and then shut down the debate. Just as bad is “that is the tail wagging the dog, what should happen is ABC”

Please, if you’re going to use that phrase, at least give a reason as to why you disagree...

...why shouldn’t the Cumbria services go via Wigan and call at Golborne?

Because that would, by definition, result in net overall fewer connectivity benefits. I.e. the gain to the people at Golborne would be far outweighed by the loss of opportunity to optimise connectivity for everybody else.

In other words, none of Options A, B or C propose a standard hour service via Golborne. Therefore to provide it, other flows (almost certainly more valuable, such as the extreme busy Bolton corridor) would lose out. That's a worse outcome for the railway as a whole.
 

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
478
Location
West Yorkshire
Are you suggesting that Avanti call at a re-opened Golborne?
Surely the reason why a re-opened Golborne shouldn't be taken into account is because there isn't a reopened Golborne and there's no indication as to when, or indeed whether, Golborne station will be built and reopened.

The Manchester Recovery Taskforce consultation is about how to make services more reliable using the existing infrastructure, not about what you would do if and when other infrastructure improvements are made.

There's a separate discussion to be had about how best to serve Golborne if and when it reopens, but in the context of this particular consultation Golborne is irrelevant.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,835
Surely the reason why a re-opened Golborne shouldn't be taken into account is because there isn't a reopened Golborne and there's no indication as to when, or indeed whether, Golborne station will be built and reopened.

The Manchester Recovery Taskforce consultation is about how to make services more reliable using the existing infrastructure, not about what you would do if and when other infrastructure improvements are made.

There's a separate discussion to be had about how best to serve Golborne if and when it reopens, but in the context of this particular consultation Golborne is irrelevant.
I know that, I was just challenging the suggestion that it was a sensible thing.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Because that would, by definition, result in net overall fewer connectivity benefits. I.e. the gain to the people at Golborne would be far outweighed by the loss of opportunity to optimise connectivity for everybody else.

In other words, none of Options A, B or C propose a standard hour service via Golborne. Therefore to provide it, other flows (almost certainly more valuable, such as the extreme busy Bolton corridor) would lose out. That's a worse outcome for the railway as a whole.
Thanks. Sorry if I came across like a **** but the tail wagging thing just does my head!
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
249
Location
UK
Once again for those at the back, are you able to prove these adjustments to Option C are actually timetable-able? "Should be do-able" doesn't cut it in an area such as Central Manchester with many inter-dependencies between the timings of all services.

A/B/C as they are have been proven to be timetable-able as a whole, and it's one of these that needs to be run with.
Options A/B/C are three possible options, it doesn't mean they are the only possible options.

In my suggestion, the only change from Option C is 1x extra train (the TfW) running from Victoria to terminate at Stalybridge. If that conflicts with the 2x Southport services, there would be several other options to be explored as the timetable is developed (eg. using the siding at Victoria, switching the Southport and Blackburn services to avoid conflicts etc).
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
It means they are the only options considered workable though

My alternative is that the TfW North and South Wales services run combined from Manchester to Crewe and divide at Crewe if splitting/joining can be achieved at Crewe station?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It means they are the only options considered workable though

My alternative is that the TfW North and South Wales services run combined from Manchester to Crewe and divide at Crewe if splitting/joining can be achieved at Crewe station?

The only platform at Crewe that can access both Chester and Manchester routes is Platform 6. Which is busy enough without being chewed up twice per hour for a split or a join.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
I was having a look at the current Chester to Manchester times and have very roughly worked out the time for the Diverted North Wales train taking into consideration the issue with track crossing beyond Greenbank.

Times as follows;

88 minutes: Current Northern Stopper; Chester to Manchester Piccadilly via Northwich.

77.5 minutes: Diverted North Wales trains; Chester, Mouldsworth, Delamere, Cuddington, Greenbank, Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. Stopper cut back to Greenbank.

70 minutes: Diverted North Wales trains had crossings not been an issue; Chester, Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.

61 minutes: Current North Wales service; Chester, Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Netwon-le-Willows, Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly.

56 minutes: Northern Chester to Leeds; Morning service with the same calling pattern as TfW service but to Manchester Victoria.

50 minutes: Northern Chester to Leeds; Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Netwon-le-Willows and Manchester Victoria.

The full Chester to Manchester Airport route is 87 minutes and the Victoria to Stalybridge service is a single diagram, so all three routes should in theory require the same amount of crew and trains to operate.

I think it's also worth noting the 03:34 Chester to Manchester Airport is timed to run via Northwich non-stop and that takes 55 minutes to get from Chester to Stockport compared to the 74 minutes the all stops Northern service is timed to take. The 03:34 is timed to be operated by a class 175, while the Northern stoppers are timed to be operated by a class 150 or 156.

Also worth noting in the morning peak under the full timetable there's two extra Chester to Stockport services and one extra Stockport to Chester service, while in the evening peak there's two extra Stockport to Chester services. That should mean even if Network Rail refuse to allow any additional trains through Mouldsworth there would still be the option for peak time Northern and TfW services between Chester and Greenbank.

One random question is we know Mid-Cheshire services generally have lower loadings between Chester and Greenbank, which is one reason why it was proposed the second service would start at Greenbank. However, would it be possible to start a train at Delamere or Cuddington? Maybe someone like @Greybeard33 can help answer that?

But then where does it go from Victoria? There’s no room to terminate.

Victoria has some long platforms, would the signalling allow a service from Leeds to terminate at the same platform as a service from Chester?
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,449
Location
Liverpool
Thanks. Sorry if I came across like a **** but the tail wagging thing just does my head!

I find its use appropriate most of the time and if you're familiar with what the phrase means, no further explanation is usually required. It's mostly used on here to counter the sentiment that every town, village and halt in the north of England should have a direct service to Manchester Airport, no matter what the cost to other journey opportunities, even though most people on any train at any one time won't be going there.

Likewise with diverting a long or medium distance service onto Chat Moss merely to serve Golborne; although that said, something would have to serve it if it were to be built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top