Glenn1969
Established Member
Can the TfW (or indeed the proposed Northern replacement service which is only an extra Chester-Manchester) be pathed into Victoria ?
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?
Can the TfW (or indeed the proposed Northern replacement service which is only an extra Chester-Manchester) be pathed into Victoria ?
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.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.
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.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.
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).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.
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.It would of course need route learning for TfW crew
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.
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.
Agreed.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Are you suggesting that Avanti call at a re-opened Golborne?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.
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?
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.Are you suggesting that Avanti call at a re-opened Golborne?
I know that, I was just challenging the suggestion that it was a sensible thing.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.
Thanks. Sorry if I came across like a **** but the tail wagging thing just does my head!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.
Options A/B/C are three possible options, it doesn't mean they are the only possible options.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.
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?
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.
But then where does it go from Victoria? There’s no room to terminate.
Thanks. Sorry if I came across like a **** but the tail wagging thing just does my head!
Avanti should only provide 3-4 tpd to chip in at Golborne, not an hourly service.Are you suggesting that Avanti call at a re-opened Golborne?