Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[scrapy]

How about going back to a slightly modified version of the pre 2018 timetable, a timetable that seemed to work well and had frequencies on some routes higher than they are now? Ok there would be slightly less trains between Manchester and Leeds but they are 5 and 6 car trains now instead of 3 car.

 

[tpjm]

It’s not possible to do that because you’d need to change more than just central Manchester and it would have a huge impact on the rest of the country. Remember, May 18 was a huge upheaval as it was a full timetable recast, and generally, if it worked, did a lot of good (although some will obviously disagree).

 

[Ianno87]

It’s not possible to do that because you’d need to change more than just central Manchester and it would have a huge impact on the rest of the country. Remember, May 18 was a huge upheaval as it was a full timetable recast, and generally, if it worked, did a lot of good (although some will obviously disagree).

Yep. The big benefit of May 18 was getting 4 fast TPEs per hour, all concentrated on the fastest route via Victoria.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

The idea of using Castlefield more like a metro route sounds like it might be sensible, with as many long distance services as possible (largely TPE and TfW) moved off the corridor to try and standardise on all-stations suburban EMUs for most services although there are issues with crossing moves. To solve one lot of crossing moves, I would suggest 4tph Liverpool-Airport (two via Warrington Central and two via Chat Moss) instead of Blackpool-Airport, but has the Victoria-Stalybridge line got the capacity to take everything that would need to go down there (well north of 8tph)? It might be necessary to send some or all of your Airport-Stalybridge services up to Rochdale instead, which of course creates a different crossing move.

I wonder, does a freight path look similar to a suburban EMU or would it fit in the opposite half-hour to a long-distance passenger service with long dwell times at Piccaddilly and not stopping at some of the other stations?

 

[wobman]

The idea of using Castlefield more like a metro route sounds like it might be sensible, with as many long distance services as possible (largely TPE and TfW) moved off the corridor to try and standardise on all-stations suburban EMUs for most services although there are issues with crossing moves. To solve one lot of crossing moves, I would suggest 4tph Liverpool-Airport (two via Warrington Central and two via Chat Moss) instead of Blackpool-Airport, but has the Victoria-Stalybridge line got the capacity to take everything that would need to go down there (well north of 8tph)? It might be necessary to send some or all of your Airport-Stalybridge services up to Rochdale instead, which of course creates a different crossing move.

I wonder, does a freight path look similar to a suburban EMU or would it fit in the opposite half-hour to a long-distance passenger service with long dwell times at Piccaddilly and not stopping at some of the other stations?

These plans look good on paper but are always far more complicated to put in place, the reason plan B+ come about was due to stakeholders informing TFN how the original plans couldn't be implemented in the timescales involved.
TFW informed the group that the earliest staff training could be completed for TFW going through Victoria onwards to stalybridge as proposed or the Cheshire lines proposal, would be mid 2023 so that maybe 1 reason plan B+ was agreed.

 

[Purple Orange]

The idea of using Castlefield more like a metro route sounds like it might be sensible, with as many long distance services as possible (largely TPE and TfW) moved off the corridor to try and standardise on all-stations suburban EMUs for most services although there are issues with crossing moves. To solve one lot of crossing moves, I would suggest 4tph Liverpool-Airport (two via Warrington Central and two via Chat Moss) instead of Blackpool-Airport, but has the Victoria-Stalybridge line got the capacity to take everything that would need to go down there (well north of 8tph)? It might be necessary to send some or all of your Airport-Stalybridge services up to Rochdale instead, which of course creates a different crossing move.

I wonder, does a freight path look similar to a suburban EMU or would it fit in the opposite half-hour to a long-distance passenger service with long dwell times at Piccaddilly and not stopping at some of the other stations?

On Stalybridge, I’d say there is room for 4 ‘metro’ services, but it all depends upon how it is prioritised. In reality it needs the 4 TPE fast services to be sent to be sent to Piccadilly. In the coming years, we will have the capacity for 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers all between Leeds & Manc, plus 2 stoppers to Stalybridge. Today we have 6 paths on the Vic-Stalybridge line (4 TPE & 2 Northern), but I’d argue that pathing could be prioritised to enable a 4 tph metro on the the three routes.

 

[Watershed]

has the Victoria-Stalybridge line got the capacity to take everything that would need to go down there (well north of 8tph)

The headway is a maximum of 4 minutes, so the theoretical maximum capacity of the line is 15tph. Of course it would be less than that once you add in the fact that some trains will stop at Ashton, and that Stalybridge doesn't have an infinite turnback capacity. But it's certainly not the biggest constraint.

 

[daodao]

The idea of using Castlefield more like a metro route sounds like it might be sensible, with as many long distance services as possible (largely TPE and TfW) moved off the corridor to try and standardise on all-stations suburban EMUs for most services

That does not seem to be the intention of TfN, as in option B+ they intend to continue running a large number of long-distance services from North Wales, Cumbria, Scotland and Tees-side via the Castlefield corridor to the Airport, together with 2 tph from Cleethorpes/Nottingham to Liverpool. While there is some reduction in other trains on this corridor, I am not convinced that using it for so many long-distance services will actually improve train performance/reliability/punctuality. These services are being retained at the expense of improving service frequency on some of the suburban stopping services into Manchester, in particular the eastern end of the CLC line and the Airport line itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That does not seem to be the intention of TfN, as in option B+ they intend to continue running a large number of long-distance services from North Wales, Cumbria, Scotland and Tees-side via the Castlefield corridor to the Airport, together with 2 tph from Cleethorpes/Nottingham to Liverpool. While there is some reduction in other trains on this corridor, I am not convinced that using it for so many long-distance services will actually improve train performance/reliability/punctuality. These services are being retained at the expense of service frequency on some of the suburban stopping services into Manchester, in particular the eastern end of the CLC line and the Airport line itself.

The trouble is where else can they go? Victoria has 4 through platforms, but you'd soon clog those up, particularly as there's no logical terminus of convenience the other side of them.

I'm all for the S-Bahn idea with all the long distance stuff moving to Vic, indeed I've proposed it a number of times, but it would have to come with demolition of the Arena and Victoria being converted into a 6 or 8-through-platform second "Hauptbahnhof" for Manchester.

 

[Senex]

The trouble is where else can they go? Victoria has 4 through platforms, but you'd soon clog those up, particularly as there's no logical terminus of convenience the other side of them.

I'm all for the S-Bahn idea with all the long distance stuff moving to Vic, indeed I've proposed it a number of times, but it would have to come with demolition of the Arena and Victoria being converted into a 6 or 8-through-platform second "Hauptbahnhof" for Manchester.

Doesn't a 'second "Hauptbahnhof"' rather defeat the object of providing a Hauptbahnhof? (They started off in the larger German cities when a single station was built to take over the functions of a number of separate stations (Colohne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, etc), so you never got them in places like Berlin and Vienna where the multiple stations remained, despite the 1880s attempt to use the Berlin Stadtbahn as a strung-out Hbf.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't a 'second "Hauptbahnhof"' rather defeat the object of providing a Hauptbahnhof? (They started off in the larger German cities when a single station was built to take over the functions of a number of separate stations (Colohne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, etc), so you never got them in places like Berlin and Vienna where the multiple stations remained, despite the 1880s attempt to use the Berlin Stadtbahn as a strung-out Hbf.)

Picky picky

Yes, you have a point, but I meant more in the sense of "large mainline station with appropriate facilities which would become an equal to Piccadilly, rather than just where all the 1980s DMUs go to fume-belch" - a bit like the two Glasgows, perhaps.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That does not seem to be the intention of TfN, as in option B+ they intend to continue running a large number of long-distance services from North Wales, Cumbria, Scotland and Tees-side via the Castlefield corridor to the Airport, together with 2 tph from Cleethorpes/Nottingham to Liverpool. While there is some reduction in other trains on this corridor, I am not convinced that using it for so many long-distance services will actually improve train performance/reliability/punctuality. These services are being retained at the expense of improving service frequency on some of the suburban stopping services into Manchester, in particular the eastern end of the CLC line and the Airport line itself.

I think they would have to keep 1tph from Cleethorpes/Nottingham (one of the two, rather than both) to Liverpool in any case, so it would still be a fully mixed traffic (freight, suburban and long-distance) railway rather than a pure metro but sending the easier long-distance services (like the North Wales one) into Victoria instead would surely have some benefit.

The trouble is where else can they go? Victoria has 4 through platforms, but you'd soon clog those up, particularly as there's no logical terminus of convenience the other side of them.

I'm all for the S-Bahn idea with all the long distance stuff moving to Vic, indeed I've proposed it a number of times, but it would have to come with demolition of the Arena and Victoria being converted into a 6 or 8-through-platform second "Hauptbahnhof" for Manchester.

There are still 12 platforms in Piccadilly that can be use for long-distance services - I think a starting point should simply be to terminate some stuff that comes up from the east at Piccadilly rather than running through. For example, instead of having Cleethorpes AND Nottingham to Liverpool have one terminate at Piccadilly and similarly anything that arrives and reverses in platforms 1-12 at PICC to head for the airport have that terminate at Piccadilly instead.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think they would have to keep 1tph from Cleethorpes/Nottingham (one of the two, rather than both) to Liverpool in any case, so it would still be a fully mixed traffic (freight, suburban and long-distance) railway rather than a pure metro but sending the easier long-distance services (like the North Wales one) into Victoria instead would surely have some benefit.


There are still 12 platforms in Piccadilly that can be use for long-distance services - I think a starting point should simply be to terminate some stuff that comes up from the east at Piccadilly rather than running through. For example, instead of having Cleethorpes AND Nottingham to Liverpool have one terminate at Piccadilly and similarly anything that arrives and reverses in platforms 1-12 at PICC to head for the airport have that terminate at Piccadilly instead.

Personally I think both the Cleethorpes and Nottingham services should terminate a Piccadilly. Castlefield just doesn't work as a long distance intercity line.

We should have 2 semi-fast Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds-Hull/Scarborough with all fast TPE between Leeds & Manc terminating at Piccadilly. Scotland services go to Victoria. TfW go to Victoria too.

 

[Glenn1969]

Personally I think both the Cleethorpes and Nottingham services should terminate a Piccadilly. Castlefield just doesn't work as a long distance intercity line.

We should have 2 semi-fast Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds-Hull/Scarborough with all fast TPE between Leeds & Manc terminating at Piccadilly. Scotland services go to Victoria. TfW go to Victoria too.

Is there room for all these extra terminators and existing long distance services on the 12 platforms available ?

 

[Purple Orange]

Is there room for all these extra terminators and existing long distance services on the 12 platforms available ?

It would be a net increase of 2 tph in the main shed, if the TPEs that currently come from Huddersfield & Hull go to Victoria and then Liverpool, instead of Piccadilly.

 

[Watershed]

It would be a net increase of 2 tph in the main shed, if the TPEs that currently come from Huddersfield & Hull go to Victoria and then Liverpool, instead of Piccadilly.

The net level of increase or decrease isn't the key thing - it's how the timings fall, and how long each service is (3/5/6 coaches).

 

[Glenn1969]

Northern leaders seek further commitments before new rail timetable agreed - Transport for the North

Seems TfN are making commitment to infrastructure investment a requirement for them to agree to Option B+ or any other cuts to the timetable. But will Shapps listen to them ?

 

[Purple Orange]

The net level of increase or decrease isn't the key thing - it's how the timings fall, and how long each service is (3/5/6 coaches).

I will admit it is arbitrary, but as far as length of train is concerned it would be that 6-car 185s are slightly longer than 5-car 802s.

Northern leaders seek further commitments before new rail timetable agreed - Transport for the North

Seems TfN are making commitment to infrastructure investment a requirement for them to agree to Option B+ or any other cuts to the timetable. But will Shapps listen to them ?

And so they should make the demands too. The IRP needs to be published. Why it is taking so long is baffling.

 

[Glenn1969]

I will admit it is arbitrary, but as far as length of train is concerned it would 6-car 185s arecslightly longer than 5-car 802s.


And so they should make the demands too. The IRP needs to be published. Why it is taking so long is baffling.

Sunak wants it delayed because he doesn't want to spend the money is what I heard. If it doesn't appear this week it could be Autumn before we see it

 

[Austriantrain]

Doesn't a 'second "Hauptbahnhof"' rather defeat the object of providing a Hauptbahnhof? (They started off in the larger German cities when a single station was built to take over the functions of a number of separate stations (Colohne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, etc), so you never got them in places like Berlin and Vienna where the multiple stations remained, despite the 1880s attempt to use the Berlin Stadtbahn as a strung-out Hbf.)

Not true for Vienna anymore, of course. But it took us far more than a century (separate terminal stations remain, but the Hauptbahnhof now really is *the* hub station).

 

[Ianno87]

Northern leaders seek further commitments before new rail timetable agreed - Transport for the North

Seems TfN are making commitment to infrastructure investment a requirement for them to agree to Option B+ or any other cuts to the timetable. But will Shapps listen to them ?

I don't follow the logic of that demand...

Shapps will just turn round and either:
-Impose the service reductions anyway (As it's basically his call)
-Or just leave the poor performing services and balme TfN for failing to agree terms.

 

[Glenn1969]

They are saying they will only agree if the reductions are temporary and a way is found to reverse them ASAP

 

[Watershed]

I will admit it is arbitrary, but as far as length of train is concerned it would 6-car 185s arecslightly longer than 5-car 802s.

I was alluding to the fact that, in platforms 1-4 and 9/10, services cannot double dock if the total length of train(s) at the buffer is more than 115m, i.e. 5 × 20m or 4 × 23m coaches.

So the length of each train is just as important as the level of service, in determining whether Piccadilly's 12 platforms can accommodate the timetable in question.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2021 ==

They are saying they will only agree if the reductions are temporary and a way is found to reverse them ASAP

They'd better win the Euromillions (more like Eurobillions!) if they have any hope of reversing the changes "soon".

 

[Ianno87]

They are saying they will only agree if the reductions are temporary and a way is found to reverse them ASAP

But commitment to infrastructure investment requires an actual strategic plan first....

 

[Glenn1969]

But commitment to infrastructure investment requires an actual strategic plan first....

so why is the Integrated Rail Plan several months late and counting? The interventions were promised 7 years ago and got Graylinged

 

[Purple Orange]

I was alluding to the fact that, in platforms 1-4 and 9/10, services cannot double dock if the total length of train(s) at the buffer is more than 115m, i.e. 5 × 20m or 4 × 23m coaches.

So the length of each train is just as important as the level of service, in determining whether Piccadilly's 12 platforms can accommodate the timetable in question.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2021 ==


They'd better win the Euromillions (more like Eurobillions!) if they have any hope of reversing the changes "soon".

I appreciate what you’re say there, but in this situation it would be replacing one train with a slightly shorter train. The Cleethorpes TPE services would continue as is, but not reverse out to the airport and the additional train would be a 4-car 158.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2021 ==

so why is the Integrated Rail Plan several months late and counting? The interventions were promised 7 years ago and got Graylinged

It’s indecision. The plan should document what the government is prepared to pay for and any dithering regarding the treasury v DfT should have been ironed out ages ago. It also would conflict with everything Johnson and Shapps has been saying for months.

 

[wobman]

I appreciate what you’re say there, but in this situation it would be replacing one train with a slightly shorter train. The Cleethorpes TPE services would continue as is, but not reverse out to the airport and the additional train would be a 4-car 158.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2021 ==


It’s indecision. The plan should document what the government is prepared to pay for and any dithering regarding the treasury v DfT should have been ironed out ages ago. It also would conflict with everything Johnson and Shapps has been saying for months.

It doesn't help when idiots like failing Grayling cancel all the north based projects, now look at the mess the north is in.
There's never a clear long term plan, the govt chop and change the plans every 5 minutes.

 

[scrapy]

It’s not possible to do that because you’d need to change more than just central Manchester and it would have a huge impact on the rest of the country. Remember, May 18 was a huge upheaval as it was a full timetable recast, and generally, if it worked, did a lot of good (although some will obviously disagree).

Thats why it would need to be slightly modified, however East Midlands, TFW, Avanti and Cross Country run to pretty much the same times as they did pre 2018, so the paths in the North West should still be there if both Transpennine and Northern change back. Paths across the Pennines are still pretty much the same for Hope Valley, and if Calder Valley paths don't quite match up at Leeds then dwell time at Bradford interchange or Brighouse could be extended slightly. Increased acceleration on the new units will probably make pathing easier.

The TPE paths for fast services across the Pennines are pretty much the same as previous so could revert to their new paths and stopping patterns east of Leeds, with Northern taking back the stoppers.

Eastern side Northern that doesn't touch Manchester / Preston could probably remain as it is now, as it is largely independent of the west side, although Halifax to Hull would probably have to be extended to Manchester and not take a separate path between Leeds and Halifax.

There aren't many places in the North West that the proposed B+ timetable benefits over the pre 2018 timetable, Chester to Manchester would lose 1tph, as would Buxton to Manchester, but the Buxton service could easily become an extension of Preston to Hazel Grove in the future if bi-mode stock was ordered or the line electrified, without affecting central Manchester and some of the stations that got increased services such as Gathurst and Meols Cop could retain them again without affecting Manchester.

 

[Ianno87]

Thats why it would need to be slightly modified, however East Midlands, TFW, Avanti and Cross Country run to pretty much the same times as they did pre 2018, so the paths in the North West should still be there if both Transpennine and Northern change back.

Didn't CrossCountry found a few minutes of journey time improvement out of it? That would have to be taken away again...

I don't get this obsession with turning back the clock.

 

[Senex]

Not true for Vienna anymore, of course. But it took us far more than a century (separate terminal stations remain, but the Hauptbahnhof now really is *the* hub station).

Nor of Berlin either, of course (but I was thinking more of the times when the Hauptbahnhof concept began to be developed). Both cities are examples of where the will to do something for the benefit of the whole system was there and the projects were pressed forward. It's worth also remembering what was done in Brussels at the end of WW2, much more recently in both Antwerp and Leipzig, and what's going on now in Stuttgart (though that's no example of good planning) to see how city systems can be properly and adequately linked up — and then compare Birmimgham, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow ... and weep.