Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[507020]

It's on Twitter, and includes an all day Southport-Oxford Road service so I can't see much objection there.

I still think it won't be reliable and that it is necessary to go below 10tphpd to make it work, ideally down to 8.

Note that Southport only had 1tph to Oxford Road for most of 2020 and nothing to Victoria. Really all trains should stop at Deansgate to make the corridor more reliable and this has the added benefit of an interchange with the Metrolink. After viewing option B+ I am left wondering what will happen to the Barrow/Windermere - Airport services.

There is a path provided from Wigan - Victoria via Golborne for future use in B+ which would solve the issue of no services running through the potential site of a future station, but does this mean the Cumbria services will be cut back to Oxenholme/Carnforth/Lancaster/Preston/Wigan or run to Victoria or Lime Street in future and not be in the scope of Castlefield?

Once whichever compromise has finally been implemented, will attention turn finally to planning how to widen the viaduct to accompany 4 tracks throughout, with 4 through platforms at Piccadilly and a centre turnback at Oxford Road? Also how many trains per hour do you think could run reliably through an improved 4 track corridor?

 

[PR1Berske]

Compromise always means someone or somewhere misses out. There will be problems for Southport because its location means its a long way from anywhere on lines which can't easily be "sped up", so to speak. Having one line to Liverpool which can't be easily skip-stopped is one problem. Having an additional line to Manchester that can't easily be modernised is quite another.

Balance connections at Wigan for Manchester and maybe Southport will have its solution. But it won't be a fix, it can only be a compromise.

 

[daodao]

Note that Southport only had 1tph to Oxford Road for most of 2020 and nothing to Victoria. Really all trains should stop at Deansgate to make the corridor more reliable and this has the added benefit of an interchange with the Metrolink. After viewing option B+ I am left wondering what will happen to the Barrow/Windermere - Airport services.

There is a path provided from Wigan - Victoria via Golborne for future use in B+ which would solve the issue of no services running through the potential site of a future station, but does this mean the Cumbria services will be cut back to Oxenholme/Carnforth/Lancaster/Preston/Wigan or run to Victoria or Lime Street in future and not be in the scope of Castlefield?

Once whichever compromise has finally been implemented, will attention turn finally to planning how to widen the viaduct to accompany 4 tracks throughout, with 4 through platforms at Piccadilly and a centre turnback at Oxford Road? Also how many trains per hour do you think could run reliably through an improved 4 track corridor?

The principle of the previous consultation was to reduce the tangle of services and make the remaining ones generally half-hourly, to make the service more reliable. This won't be achieved by running some of the Southport services onto the Castlefield line or by routeing an hourly service from Preston and beyond to Manchester via Wigan NW. The proposal for the 4-track corridor along the Castlefield line would be prohibitively expensive and is outwith the scope of this consultation, which is about optimising use of existing infrastructure.

 

[Glenn1969]

A public consultation looking at different timetable solutions for the Manchester Castlefield Corridor has been launched today.
It details 3 different timetable options to improve performance and service levels. I've had a quick read through, and some of the changes proposed are quite substantial. I don't think there is any one option that will completely satisfy everyone and there will be winners and losers.

Timetable options to improve rail performance in the north of England

Proposes options to improve train performance in the Manchester area and beyond by altering the north of England rail timetable.

www.gov.uk

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are, I've not made a decision yet on what option I think would be best

Bradford and Halifax are badly served by option B because we have to change for all destinations west of Manchester and still have no access to Castlefield. So I'm not sure West Yorks will approve this as a preferred option in the TfN discussion- especially if NPR via Bradford is no longer on the table

 

[PR1Berske]

Bradford and Halifax are badly served by option B because we have to change for all destinations west of Manchester and still have no access to Castlefield. So I'm not sure West Yorks will approve this as a preferred option in the TfN discussion- especially if NPR via Bradford is no longer on the table

I fear that it's a case of "something has to give." But yes, if Bradford loses out twice, with NPR and Option B, then I dread to think what increased hold-ups will be made while Yorkshire refuses to play ball.

 

[Purple Orange]

Someone always was going to ‘lose out’ as such in order for better reliability, but does greater reliability not outweigh any loss of direct access to the opposite side of Manchester? Most people on a service heading towards Manchester tend to be going to Manchester, rather than passing through to another destination anyhow. Those that are going beyond Manchester are more than likely needing to change trains anyway.

All services from my local station now go straight in to the Piccadilly main platform station apart from one train via the airport that takes an age (it’s never been worth getting that service to Manchester). If it reduces the delays then great, I am happy to lose connections to Oxford Road & Deansgate - I’ve never been too fussed about connecting to Bolton, Wigan or Southport. Better all round.

 

[Killingworth]

I fear that it's a case of "something has to give." But yes, if Bradford loses out twice, with NPR and Option B, then I dread to think what increased hold-ups will be made while Yorkshire refuses to play ball.

Just musing aloud, "while Yorkshire refuses to play ball". For those not in Yorkshire, that effectively means West Yorkshire. North, South and East Yorkshire rarely get near the railway ball!

 

[Purple Orange]

Just musing aloud, "while Yorkshire refuses to play ball". For those not in Yorkshire, that effectively means West Yorkshire. North, South and East Yorkshire rarely get near the railway ball!

Will West Yorkshire really kick up much of a fuss? There are no changes to the main trans pennine corridor that have not been directed as a result of the DfT wanting to squeeze in an additional London ECML service. As far as I see, the line to Bradford ‘loses out” just as much as the south Manchester WCML to Cheshire, and I wouldn’t call it losing out at all.

 

[tommy2215]

Bradford and Halifax are badly served by option B because we have to change for all destinations west of Manchester and still have no access to Castlefield. So I'm not sure West Yorks will approve this as a preferred option in the TfN discussion- especially if NPR via Bradford is no longer on the table

B doesn't, but the preferred B+ option has Chester-Leeds via Bradford and Halifax surviving.

 

[Killingworth]

This isn't my geographical area, but a saw a tweet suggesting that a version B+ is on the agenda for a meeting tomorrow. I'm surprised no-one has picked up on this.

For the benefit of others, what and where is it on Twitter? Any links?

 

[Purple Orange]

Agenda for Rail North Committee Strategic Rail Director Consultation Call on Wednesday, 14th July, 2021, 4.15 pm

This is a link to the site where the meeting agenda is. This highlights the B+ plan.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Agenda for Rail North Committee Strategic Rail Director Consultation Call on Wednesday, 14th July, 2021, 4.15 pm

This is a link to the site where the meeting agenda is. This highlights the B+ plan.

I notice what appear to be a lot of selective facts being used to make B+ look like this knight in shining armor. Who would do such A monumentally Bad thing?

I also notice they intend to order Sprinter replacements in 2023.

 

[Greybeard33]

IsA B+ version eh... how does that vary from the original B version?

Option B+ is described in a paper for the 14 July Rail North Committee session, which can be downloaded from

Agenda for Rail North Committee Strategic Rail Director Consultation Call on Wednesday, 14th July, 2021, 4.15 pm

There are a number of changes from the original Option B.

The Southport to Victoria via Bolton service is diverted to terminate at Oxford Road.

The peak only Wigan to Hazel Grove via Golborne service is split into separate Wigan to Victoria (path for "future use") and Piccadilly to Hazel Grove peak only services.

The peak only Wigan to Oxford Road via Atherton service is diverted to terminate at Victoria (as now).

The Stalybridge to Chester service is cut back to Victoria and one of the Leeds via Bradford services is extended to Chester instead (as now).

The 2tph from Blackpool to Alderley Edge via Chorley and Stockport are diverted to both terminate at the Airport, with 1tph Piccadilly to Alderley Edge via Stockport and 1tph Piccadilly to Crewe via Stockport (instead of via Styal).

The paper says that the Task Force has not yet carried out performance modelling on Option B+, but, in their professional judgement, the benefits are not expected to be significantly less than for Options B and C. This seems somewhat surprising, in that B+ has 1tph more through Castlefield off peak.

 

[tbtc]

I really don't think that this is going to solve much, but then again there are some people who seem to want to make such a mess of things that they get so bad that the "only" option is for Westminster to find hundreds of millions of pounds for an all-singing-all-dancing four track Castlefield with grade separation, turn backs, bells, whistles etc

I think that "having a good service to central Manchester" is much more important than "maintaining a service to my favourite central Manchester station/ Airport/ some place beyond Manchester" - e.g. I'd have been fine with Sheffield having two "fast" Hope Valley services and one "slow" Hope Valley service which all terminated in the main shed at Piccadilly - whilst I've used the train for direct journeys to the Airport/ Warrington etc (and would potentially use a direct service to Victoria/ Wigan/ Blackpool/ Lakes etc), the rare occasions when such through service would be "useful" aren't enough to warrant an hourly service

However, we obviously share the planet with a number of people who obviously do fixate on such direct links, so some degree of compromise was always going to be necessary, even if it's only a fairly small tweak from one of the three options, to give some people the impression that they have "won"

 

[js1000]

I really don't think that this is going to solve much, but then again there are some people who seem to want to make such a mess of things that they get so bad that the "only" option is for Westminster to find hundreds of millions of pounds for an all-singing-all-dancing four track Castlefield with grade separation, turn backs, bells, whistles etc

I think that "having a good service to central Manchester" is much more important than "maintaining a service to my favourite central Manchester station/ Airport/ some place beyond Manchester" - e.g. I'd have been fine with Sheffield having two "fast" Hope Valley services and one "slow" Hope Valley service which all terminated in the main shed at Piccadilly - whilst I've used the train for direct journeys to the Airport/ Warrington etc (and would potentially use a direct service to Victoria/ Wigan/ Blackpool/ Lakes etc), the rare occasions when such through service would be "useful" aren't enough to warrant an hourly service

However, we obviously share the planet with a number of people who obviously do fixate on such direct links, so some degree of compromise was always going to be necessary, even if it's only a fairly small tweak from one of the three options, to give some people the impression that they have "won"

The whole thing is just a complete mess. Everyone in the North wanted a direct rail link to Manchester and Manchester Airport. The only good to have come from this debacle is that this experiment has now been tried and proven it cannot work and a reasonable tph rate through Manchester can now be agreed. It has failed to offer a reliable timetable so much that it has actually led to some previously profitable commuter routes and stations losing far too many passengers.

 

[Greybeard33]

However, we obviously share the planet with a number of people who obviously do fixate on such direct links, so some degree of compromise was always going to be necessary, even if it's only a fairly small tweak from one of the three options, to give some people the impression that they have "won"

I fear that, in attempting to appease the objectors to the original options, the Task Force has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Unlike the original three options, Option B+ severs both of the direct cross city services between the Stockport line and the Bolton line (currently Blackpool to Hazel Grove and Southport to Alderley Edge). From my observations this link was well used in the peaks, pre pandemic. The Blackpool - Hazel Grove service has been in the timetable for many years, and cross city commuters will have had a reasonable expectation that it would continue. But now they will be faced with the trek between the Piccadilly main shed and the scrum on P13/14.

For a commuter journey, e.g. Levenshulme to Salford Crescent, the time added by changing at Piccadilly is a much larger proportion of the total journey time than for an intercity journey, e.g. Sheffield to Manchester Airport.

I expect another storm of protests when this is put out to public consultation.

 

[Killingworth]

I think that "having a good service to central Manchester" is much more important than "maintaining a service to my favourite central Manchester station/ Airport/ some place beyond Manchester" - e.g. I'd have been fine with Sheffield having two "fast" Hope Valley services and one "slow" Hope Valley service which all terminated in the main shed at Piccadilly - whilst I've used the train for direct journeys to the Airport/ Warrington etc (and would potentially use a direct service to Victoria/ Wigan/ Blackpool/ Lakes etc), the rare occasions when such through service would be "useful" aren't enough to warrant an hourly service

However, we obviously share the planet with a number of people who obviously do fixate on such direct links, so some degree of compromise was always going to be necessary, even if it's only a fairly small tweak from one of the three options, to give some people the impression that they have "won"

Speaking from Sheffield, I agree.

I can't say I'm thrilled by all Hope Valley fast services going through 13/14 and Castlefield to/from Liverpool. Firstly I'm yet to be convinced that that will greatly improve the reliability of two long distance services. Secondly the time to get from the entrance of the station to crowded and unattractive platforms 13/14 adds a couple of minutes to overall journey time.

But we have to give this a try. At least both fasts will depart from the same place. However, Northern's 195 stopping services may get extra through business, not least because their fares can undercut the other two by 50% or more! Loadings are already back to pre-Covid on many of their trains.

 

[PR1Berske]

The current Southport to Manchester set-up needs improvement, not least because missing a train from Piccadilly entails either making it to Victoria or hoping you can catch a connection at Salford. One destination for all Southport services makes sense on this basis, on paper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current Southport to Manchester set-up needs improvement, not least because missing a train from Piccadilly entails either making it to Victoria or hoping you can catch a connection at Salford. One destination for all Southport services makes sense on this basis, on paper.

That does not appear to be the overriding desire of the Sandgrounders and other users of the line (as represented by OPSTA). The preference appears to be "one of each" as has been the established pattern since the late 1990s, and before that it was still split in a sense with an all-day hourly-ish service running to Picc and beyond and peak extras to/from Vic. Only pre Windsor Link (early 90s?) was it all to Vic as Picc could not be reached.

You can, as you say, always take a connection if you miss it and can't be bothered walking over to the other station.

Nominally the "both to Vic" thing does make sense, but it seems a fair whack of the Southport line users have built up their journeys based on direct services to Castlefield (e.g. working at or attending the university) and the additional journey time on a commute would never be appreciated. And most people don't regularly miss trains on infrequent services, they check the timetable and act accordingly. It's not like a "walk up" type service like Merseyrail.

 

[PR1Berske]

Fair points @Bletchleyite

 

[Purple Orange]

I fear that, in attempting to appease the objectors to the original options, the Task Force has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Unlike the original three options, Option B+ severs both of the direct cross city services between the Stockport line and the Bolton line (currently Blackpool to Hazel Grove and Southport to Alderley Edge). From my observations this link was well used in the peaks, pre pandemic. The Blackpool - Hazel Grove service has been in the timetable for many years, and cross city commuters will have had a reasonable expectation that it would continue. But now they will be faced with the trek between the Piccadilly main shed and the scrum on P13/14.

For a commuter journey, e.g. Levenshulme to Salford Crescent, the time added by changing at Piccadilly is a much larger proportion of the total journey time than for an intercity journey, e.g. Sheffield to Manchester Airport.

I expect another storm of protests when this is put out to public consultation.

But we don’t have the infrastructure to run all the services that people want. Since May 2018 reliability has been nonexistent and one of the the root cause reasons of that was the government cancelling the outstanding northern hub work, yet pressing ahead with the timetable changes that this work was meant to facilitate. Something needs to give.

From my personal experience, on my line we had Alderley Edge to Southport and the majority of people get off in Manchester. The one benefit of that service has not really been about travelling to Bolton, Wigan or Southport, but having a service that stopped at Piccadilly, Oxford Rd and Deansgate. However the service was unreliable and I’m glad it is being chopped in half, precisely because of that unreliability.

What would be far more beneficial would be a high frequency corridor service and people use it like using a metro. For example all Stockport services terminate in the main train shed (including the Sheffield fasts), but then we have no more than two dedicated services passing through Castlefield - one towards Bolton (and onwards) and one towards Victoria (and onwards). That would help far more people, knowing that once arriving at Piccadilly, you’ll have no more than a 5-10 minute wait until you connecting train.

 

[wobman]

It's a shame a city growing at the scale Manchester is, doesn't get the transport infrastructure spending it deserves.
Adding more lines through castlefield through to Piccadilly and adding platforms 15&16 would be ideal but won't happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be far more beneficial would be a high frequency corridor service and people use it like using a metro. For example all Stockport services terminate in the main train shed (including the Sheffield fasts), but then we have no more than two dedicated services passing through Castlefield - one towards Bolton (and onwards) and one towards Victoria (and onwards). That would help far more people, knowing that once arriving at Piccadilly, you’ll have no more than a 5-10 minute wait until you connecting train.

That's the S-Bahn argument, I guess, and we have had that at various points during this thread. The problem is that unless you are going to heavily lop frequencies those trains have to go somewhere, and Vic is hardly huge, so you just end up moving the problem elsewhere.

 

[tpjm]

The key thing to remember here is that this is a TT consultation.

Clearly, as has been proven, it is not possible to run the May ‘18 TT with any level of reliability. The resilience of the Castlefield Corridor is non-existent and even the slightest bit of delay causes significant reactionary delay. At this stage, as people return to rail and services are reintroduced, the priority HAS to be performance. The railway needs to attract customers back if it is to survive and therefore services need to have the advertised and sufficient capacity and run when they are timetabled to. Inevitably, this means a reduction in service on some routes (against the Dec 19 TT) until such a time that interventions can be developed, funded and delivered, although most routes will have seen a reduced service operate over the last 18 months anyway.

I’m not in a position to comment on what those interventions will be, but know this: they will come in stages and the ambition is a long term solution which is far reaching beyond just to “four track and build Platform 15/16”. As I said in another thread, more platforms and tracks does not equal a complete solution to the challenges of the corridor.

Short term (gentle) pain, long term gain - all in the name of doing what should have been done before trying to increase the service level in 2018!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Short term (gentle) pain, long term gain - all in the name of doing what should have been done before trying to increase the service level in 2018!

What should never have happened was building that white elephant of a Chord until the other components it required to operate reliably (Oxford Road upgrade, Picc 15/16) had been built first.

It was OK-ish before that.

 

[BrianW]

How much longer can people argue. #1313 1314 now on this thread alone. It's never been possible to please everyone. How much more so-called consultation? I recognise it takes time to build and implement a new timetable. A/ B/ B+/C ... C++ ... ? Consistency, reliability, those are the objectives. Let's get on now.

 

[Watershed]

How much longer can people argue. #1313 1314 now on this thread alone. It's never been possible to please everyone. How much more so-called consultation? I recognise it takes time to build and implement a new timetable. A/ B/ B+/C ... C++ ... ? Consistency, reliability, those are the objectives. Let's get on now.

Everyone agrees on the principles. But ultimately the thorny issue of "so who's going to lose out" needs to be answered.

Even if a decision on a timetable had been made straight away without a public consultation, it would still be taking the same sort of timescale for the industry to deliver.

 

[Purple Orange]

That's the S-Bahn argument, I guess, and we have had that at various points during this thread. The problem is that unless you are going to heavily lop frequencies those trains have to go somewhere, and Vic is hardly huge, so you just end up moving the problem elsewhere.

Well they wouldn’t terminate at Vic, but I’d seek to have:

• 4 x Airport - Stalybridge (2 continue to Huddersfield)
• 4 x Airport - Blackpool
• 4 x Rochdale - Blackburn via Vic

Around that the hourly Scotland, Windermere, North Wales, 2 Liverpool via Chat Moss, 2 Chester. However it would likely require infrastructure such as a metro tunnel to take the CLC and Leeds fasts diverted in to Piccadilly HS2.

 

[PR1Berske]

How much longer can people argue.

You'd be surprised!

 

[Ianno87]

What should never have happened was building that white elephant of a Chord until the other components it required to operate reliably (Oxford Road upgrade, Picc 15/16) had been built first.

It was OK-ish before that.

1) Unfortunately that's the reality of how railway funding and scheme delivery works. The Chord was simply the easiest to deliver first.

2) It would have been fine if Option A/B/B+/C had been implemented in May 2018, not just squeezing a quart into a pint pot as ended up being the case. It was always the plan to deliver the chord first, and have a service tailored to fit it, until such a time the whole corridor works could be done.

Short term (gentle) pain, long term gain - all in the name of doing what should have been done before trying to increase the service level in 2018!

Precisely this - the consultation specification is what should have been implemented in May 2018, pending the full Castlefield corridor infrastructure being available. It was always going to be necessary to deliver the infrastructure incremetally (like how Thameslink wasn't all done in one go)

If that had been done, we'd all be sitting here remarking how well the Chord worked, and how we need the extra infrastructure to get more services using it.