• 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
The West Yorkshire authorities actually want both AND a Calder Valley service to Castlefield and a Calder Valley service to Liverpool. They are also lobbying for Calder Valley to be electrified. More on these plans are to be revealed by WYCA at 5pm today when they hold a webinar on their future rail plans
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
The West Yorkshire authorities actually want both AND a Calder Valley service to Castlefield and a Calder Valley service to Liverpool. They are also lobbying for Calder Valley to be electrified. More on these plans are to be revealed by WYCA at 5pm today when they hold a webinar on their future rail plans

The proposals are short term measures which can be implemented next year with existing infrastructure and which should allow a reasonably punctual timetable. If they are talking about electrification then those are long term measures, which won't be possible to implement by next year.

I'm sure GMCA would also like the original idea of a train every 15 minutes between Victoria and the airport (including one from Bradford) but they accept it can't happen with the additional infrastructure, as it would provide an unreliable service.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
The West Yorkshire authorities actually want both AND a Calder Valley service to Castlefield and a Calder Valley service to Liverpool. They are also lobbying for Calder Valley to be electrified. More on these plans are to be revealed by WYCA at 5pm today when they hold a webinar on their future rail plans
Those are quite laudable aspirations. But MRTF is about developing a timetable that can be delivered with the current infrastructure.

Those aspirations likely go well beyond what can be delivered with the current infrastructure. As we know, some existing services will in fact have to be axed or diverted to deliver better reliability.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
The question is really would they support a package extending more Calder Valley services beyond Manchester Victoria if another part of that package is a reduction in direct Leeds to Manchester Airport services? While Chester's a nice city and the station is an interchange for services to North Wales, I don't think a half hourly service from Bradford and Halifax to Chester is going to be something that the West Yorkshire authorities will see as a must have

It's not about West Yorkshire - Cheshire demand, more about Leeds - Bradford - Manchester Victoria being a half hourly service run by something like a 158 and Manchester - Warrington BQ - Chester being a half hourly service run by something like a 158, so it makes sense to tie the two together - same goes with the other services on the Rochdale corridor (a half hourly Blackburn - Bolton - Manchester - Rochdale and a half hourly Wigan - Manchester - Rochdale service that extends hourly towards Burnley/ Dewsbury) - and the other services through Victoria being half hourly (Liverpool - York, Southport - Stalybridge, Airport - York).

The problem is that, if we assume that the Airport is a more desirable destination than other places and that a Castlefield service is better than a "main shed" Piccadilly service which is in turn better than a Victoria service then you create a hierarchy wherever everyone clamours for an "Airport via Castlefield" service for their line, which means that the only way of trying to accommodate as many of these demands as possible is to create a mess of hourly services that spread delays between different lines and result in horribly pathed services (e.g. nine trains per hour from Piccadilly to the Airport but gaps of up to seventeen minutes but then three trains within around five minutes of each other).

You've then also got the problem that the scarce Castlefield/ Airport paths would more likely be given to who shouts loudest (which includes who has the more organised letter writing campaign/ who has a local MP with good connections in Government) - I'd rather than the railway focussed on simple timetables that ensured as much reliability as possible (e.g. if there's a delay on the Chester - Leeds service then you can drop everything back half an hour to resume the normal timetable)

The West Yorkshire authorities actually want both AND a Calder Valley service to Castlefield and a Calder Valley service to Liverpool. They are also lobbying for Calder Valley to be electrified. More on these plans are to be revealed by WYCA at 5pm today when they hold a webinar on their future rail plans

This is what's got us into this mess - trying to give everywhere as many hourly links as possible (instead of giving places a well balanced service to Manchester, where there are good connections to well balanced services on other lines)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You can certainly say that the Sandgrounders shout loudly. I was absolutely astonished to read in Modern Railways today that someone is seriously proposing an alternative to NPR (seriously enough for it to appear in MR, anyway) which builds a through underground station in Liverpool so that it can run to...wait for it...Southport! :)

(To be fair I believe Southport has been on "TPE" in BR days anyway, I definitely have a distinct memory of seeing Trans-Pennine Express branded Mk2s there at one point, though that could have just been those coaches being used on the commuter "club train" the line used to have)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
You can certainly say that the Sandgrounders shout loudly
Unfortunately it seems they may get their will. Which is inevitably going to cause problems when all the other areas that don't get their will realise...
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
You can certainly say that the Sandgrounders shout loudly.
And Southport has most certainly got some powerful support in the consultation response from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority:
Effectively removing the Southport-south Manchester link to make the timetable
work, disadvantages a large number of current users. Further details on the
previous evidence to support Rail services from Southport to South Manchester is
detailed in Annex 1.
...the proposed changes are not acceptable to the Liverpool City Region.
The loss of the Southport-south Manchester link is too much of a negative. The
need for this service has been clearly demonstrated which is why it was re-
introduced. No such work to has been undertaken to other services and yet this
service is not included within any of the options.
The consultation proposes 3 options for timetable change for rail services across
Manchester, none of which are acceptable to the LCRCA given the changes and
disruption that would impact on LCRCA rail passengers.
1 train per hour from Southport is diverted away from Manchester
Piccadilly/Alderley Edge, instead running to Manchester Victoria. As stated earlier
this takes away direct services from passengers on the Southport line to Oxford
Road and Piccadilly. The service has been justified in the past and should not be
withdrawn again. In fact none of the 3 options retain a regular link from Southport to
South Manchester apart from a peak service to Oxford Road in Option C.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Which is itself interesting, as in my experience most Sandgrounders consider themselves Lancastrians rather than Scousers, and would rather be in (and have the lower Council Tax of) West Lancashire! :)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
None of these responses ever seem able to justify why they should be able to have the service they want, but everyone else can get lost. Which is about the sum of it.

Indeed. I'm aware of arguments backed up with facts and figures for why Mid-Cheshire services only going as far as Altrincham or Stockport do not have the same benefits as ones going into Manchester. For example, Metrolink not running to a proper timetable and terminating late running services at Timperley makes connections difficult when travelling in the Northwich direction, as well as journeys with a change being very slow in comparison to the distance travelled. However, for Southport it might be quicker to catch an express train from Manchester to Wigan and then get a local train to Southport opposed to travelling all the way on a direct stopping service.

I'm not a rail planning expert but I know that the original plan was Wigan to Bolton would be electrified and there weren't originally any plans to convert old electric trains to be bi-mode trains. Those changes make it hard to justify trains from Southport not being able to run via Bolton into Piccadilly solely because trains from Southport will be running on diesel.

(e.g. if there's a delay on the Chester - Leeds service then you can drop everything back half an hour to resume the normal timetable)

The other side of that argument is until the services recover a problem at Rochdale could cause all Chester services to be disrupted, rather than half.

You've then also got the problem that the scarce Castlefield/ Airport paths would more likely be given to who shouts loudest (which includes who has the more organised letter writing campaign/ who has a local MP with good connections in Government)

The thing I don't get is if Oxford Road station being convenient for the universities in Manchester is a benefit for stations in Merseyside, then won't that be a benefit for the South Yorkshire stations which could see a Manchester Airport service diverted to Liverpool instead?

This is what's got us into this mess - trying to give everywhere as many hourly links as possible (instead of giving places a well balanced service to Manchester, where there are good connections to well balanced services on other lines)

Wasn't one of the benefits of the revised TransPennine service pattern supposed to be half-hourly Liverpool to York and half-hourly Manchester Airport to York, leaving the Hull service being a slower service to Piccadilly only?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
All this arguing between stakeholders is very predictable, and all it does is guarantee that the new timetable will be delayed, and thus everyone loses. You can’t write a timetable until it’s agreed what it is going to do.

I was absolutely astonished to read in Modern Railways today that someone is seriously proposing an alternative to NPR (seriously enough for it to appear in MR, anyway) which builds a through underground station in Liverpool so that it can run to...wait for it...Southport! :)

It never ceases to amaze me why they print such super-crayoned rubbish. They must just be filling space, or possibly paid to do it. Seems to be happening more under the new regime.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Does the further delay of the Integrated Rail Plan to mid May (after the elections) affect these decisions and their timescale or not really ?
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Does the further delay of the Integrated Rail Plan to mid May (after the elections) affect these decisions and their timescale or not really ?
In a verbal report to the Greater Manchester Transport Committee this morning, Caroline Whittam, TfGM Head of Rail Franchising, said that the planned timescale for the Manchester Recovery timetable is as follows:
  • Mid April: TfN Rail North Committee approval of preferred option
  • End April: DfT approval of preferred option
  • May: TOC-led consultation on the details of the recast
  • Beginning of August: TOC timetable bids submitted to Network Rail
  • May 2022: Target date for implementation
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Think TfN meeting to approve the preferred option is supposed to be today (Thurs 15th). Any news on what they decided ?
 

BHXDMT

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2011
Messages
276
Location
England
The board meeting today can be found here:


Now, I'm not incredibly familiar with all this, but Andy Burnham raises what happened at the Rail North meeting regarding the Taskforce this morning at 24:20 in the video.

From what I can gather:

  • The Taskforce(?) have now said the options are not workable (something about level crossings in Cheshire affecting TfW services among other things).
  • The Taskforce hasn't looked at (in any detail) the option that Transport for Greater Manchester proposed.
  • Castlefield Corridor Infrastructure works won't be ready until at least the early 2030s.
  • Metro Mayors unwilling to sign off what is effectively a reduced timetable for a decade.
  • Urgent letter to be sent to Secretary of State for Transport demanding the issue is dealt with asap (Castlefield infrastructure).
Some very unhappy leaders there, who are mostly blaming the rail industry and Secretary of State. No idea where this leaves the Taskforce, but May 2022 probably in doubt?
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
It probably leaves it with Option A (the least change). Which is what I thought would happen all along (think only Option C sent the TFW service via Northwich and NR blocked the 2nd Mid Cheshire service in 2015 citing level crossings amongst other things unless I'm mistaken)
 

scrapy

Established Member
Joined
15 Dec 2008
Messages
2,081
It probably leaves it with Option A (the least change). Which is what I thought would happen all along (think only Option C sent the TFW service via Northwich and NR blocked the 2nd Mid Cheshire service in 2015 citing level crossings amongst other things unless I'm mistaken)
I believe it's something to do with the farm crossings between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,945
Location
UK
Which is the same as they said 7 years ago. So in this case do they plan to do anything to rectify it?
Who is going to fund it? No-one will be very happy at putting up money to get a "worse" service.
 

Rail Ranger

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2014
Messages
581
I now prefer Option C, but what would happen to Handforth's service in Option C?
From memory, Handforth retains two trains per hour to and from Manchester but loses its through service to Crewe (both trains terminate at Alderley Edge).
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
The Taskforce(?) have now said the options are not workable (something about level crossings in Cheshire affecting TfW services among other things).
As ever, new excuses.
NR blocked the 2nd Mid Cheshire service in 2015 citing level crossings amongst other things unless I'm mistaken
Which is the same as they said 7 years ago. So in this case do they plan to do anything to rectify it?
Network Rail said they fixed issues relating to level crossings, although I think they were in the Altrincham area, not the southern end. However, if it relates to timings, just put up telephones at the crossings, no?
Maybe Mr Burnham could fund it (do TfGM have devolved funding for transport?)
You kid yourself.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
I know West Yorkshire's Mayor will have devolved funding for Transport after he/she is elected in May and thought the same may apply in Manchester
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
It probably leaves it with Option A (the least change). Which is what I thought would happen all along (think only Option C sent the TFW service via Northwich and NR blocked the 2nd Mid Cheshire service in 2015 citing level crossings amongst other things unless I'm mistaken)
From watching the video, Andy Burnham seemed to say that all three of the consultation options had been found to be unworkable, not just Option C. As well as the level crossings issue, there was mention of objections from Northern regarding availability of rolling stock and drivers.

It is unfortunate that there was no webcast of this morning's Rail North Committee meeting (as is normal practice), so we only have second hand information from Burnham and the other TfN members who subsequently attended the TfN Board Meeting.

TfN Board members expressed considerable anger that the Task Force had failed to ensure that the rail industry as a whole was in agreement with its proposals, before putting them out to public consultation.

TfN is writing to the Transport Secretary to request an urgent meeting of the Northern Transport Acceleration Council, so the northern leaders can demand an acceleration of investment in infrastructure solutions.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
I think it will be the latter and it will be Option A. But who knows if Northern have said they don't have enough stock or enough trained drivers ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top