Merseyrail - What's the point of Hunts Cross?

[ivanhoe]

I think Warrington is key to any changes to the CLC line. It's 4 stations have more passengers than the rest of the non-Merseyrail stations put together. It's main station gets 4 tph to Liverpool and Manchester from the current arrangement, which is all it'd probably get with a split service, but with semi fasts and direct trains across the Pennines. They'll also be keen on retaining links from Birchwood and Padgate to Liverpool and Warrington West to Manchester.

Warrington hasn't thrown its lot in with Liverpool or Manchester in the devolution deals, preferring a Cheshire grouping it will presumably have a big influence in. I doubt they'll be keen on anything perceived not to benefit Warrington.


I'd also question the value of more stops at the small Greater Manchester stations, and also how Mossley Hill and West Allerton would be served - LM won't want them and neither should Liverpool want its already slow service to Birmingham slowed further. Halton Curve maybe?

Warrington has grown dramatically over the last 15 years from an Economical point of view primarily because of its closeness to the Motorway crossroads of the M6 and M62 . As a result, its traffic problems are drastic and currently not sustainable. It's linked to the economies of both Liverpool City Region and Manchester City Region. With Halton throwing its hat in with LCR I would of thought greater integration with either MCR or LCR would have been more beneficial.

If anybody doubts the point of Hunts Cross, look up its passenger usage statistics.

 

[jamesst]

Some interesting ideas but I'm 100% certain there will never be any extension of Merseyrail past Hunts Cross. Indeed if it's still going past Liverpool South Parkway in years to come I'd be surprised!

 

[Dixie]

I for one would be very annoyed if the service to Hunts Cross were to be curtailed at Liverpool South Parkway. This is one of the few train services that I regularly use, going to the City Centre, Wirral and Southport, often taking my bike. It would be great if the service were to be extended to Hough Green as proposed some years ago, as I live in Halewood and would then only have to walk 20 minutes to the station instead of 40 minutes (15 on bike) to Hunts Cross. At present Halewood only has 1 train an hour in each direction, whereas Hunts Cross is every 15 minutes most of the day.

The trains to Hunts Cross are all well used as this is the main station for Woolton, Hunts Cross and Speke.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think Warrington is key to any changes to the CLC line. It's 4 stations have more passengers than the rest of the non-Merseyrail stations put together. It's main station gets 4 tph to Liverpool and Manchester from the current arrangement, which is all it'd probably get with a split service, but with semi fasts and direct trains across the Pennines. They'll also be keen on retaining links from Birchwood and Padgate to Liverpool and Warrington West to Manchester.

Yes, politically I think it would be a non-starter to withdraw the through semi-fast services from the CLC. Just look at the furore over the (much more modest) plan to divert the Southport - Manchester Airport service to Manchester Victoria.

The successful campaign for a station at Warrington West was for improved connectivity to Manchester as well as Liverpool. I understand it is planned that at least one of the semi-fasts will stop there.

Warrington Central, as the name suggests, is central. It is adjacent to the bus Interchange and close to the shopping centre. Bank Quay is on the edge of the town with relatively poor bus services. More services from there would be a poor substitute.

I often travel between Manchester and Liverpool South Parkway, and see plenty of other passengers making similar journeys. It would be highly inconvenient to have to change at Lime Street or Warrington Central.

South Parkway has a frequent bus shuttle to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, which is in competition with Manchester Airport for some European destinations. I am sure the Airport would object strongly to the loss of direct rail services from Manchester.

Warrington Central is an elevated two-platform station with no room for expansion. It could not cope with local terminating services in addition to the through semi-fasts.

Regarding Hunts Cross, the present arrangements have worked satisfactorily for many years, so what is the justification for a change, particularly if this involves costly modifications to the track layout? In my experience, delays at the Merseyrail/main line crossover are infrequent and short.

 

[HSTEd]

The furore that's not going to stop it happening?

Improved 'connectivity' is not just obtained with direct trains, it is obtained with a whole service solution.
As has been stated before the bulk of traffic to a station on northern tends to be to or from the nearest large urban centre.
These are the flows that the railway should be optimised for - not chasing obscure journeys for the benefit of a few who avoid walking along a platform!
Offer the stations west of central 4 Merseyrail trains an hour and those east two into Picadilly and Central campaigners will rapidly find themselves almost alone.

And the only place Liverpool Airport is a serious competitor with Manchester is in the fantasies of its management

 

[Bletchleyite]

For those who were saying that Warrington C can't handle terminating traffic, the previous service pattern was, per hour:

1 x CT Liverpool-Norwich
1 x TPE Liverpool-Sunderland
1 x FNW Liverpool-Manchester Airport semifast
1 x FNW Liverpool-Warrington C all stations
0.5 x FNW Manchester-Warrington C all stations (I think it only ran past Irlam every 2 hours, but unless freights used it I guess the path was probably there hourly if they wanted it, though Glazebrook[1] is in the middle of nowhere and Warrington passengers had the fasts).

[1] Would serve parts of Cadishead but there's no path over the river (Glaze Brook) to get there!

 

[8A Rail]

Hunts Cross was not envisage as the terminating station as that was going to be Hough Green Station, as that and still is part of the "Merseytravel" boundary. But as we all know, that idea has never got off the board sadly. Remember, Liverpool South Parkway was not being thought of as part of those original plans (as far as I am aware). I think unless something financially significant happens, then I see Hunts Cross remaining as the terminating point rather than cutting back to LSP.

 

[HSTEd]

Warrington Central - Hunts Cross is 20 minutes
Hunts Cross - Liverpool Central is 18 minutes
So 38 minutes

The current four trains an hour from Central to Lime Street appear to take 22, 26, 31 and 38 minutes. Which means the trains would be on average ~9 minutes slower. However any speed improvements from faster acceleating electric trains will tend to erase that advantage - and them there is the advantage to the passengers of the clock face timetable to consider.

EDIT:

In another hour (~11:30-12:30AM on the 2nd September 2017) there are trains at 1146, 1157, 1211, 1230.
They take 39, 34, 41 and 29 minutes, for an average journey time of ~36 minutes, so only two minutes quicker.

Having a random grab bag of train times is not helpful for the passengers I would imagine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail from Southport is popular, and I expect the frequency has to do with it, as it's really pretty slow, same with Chester. I don't know how a 2 fasts 2 slows per hour timetable would compare in popularity.

 

[mr_jrt]

I would have thought the point was obvious...it's an important station on the route to Gateacre and the rest of the Outer Loop.

...when Liverpool ever gets around to finishing it, that is.

 

[HSTEd]

It seems that the train times are changing from one hour to the next, along with journey times - which likely leads to passengers turning up at random times, diluting the advantage of seperate 'fast' and 'slow' timetables.

A reliable consistant-15 minute interval service with consistant journey times seems advantageous at attracting and retaining customers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A reliable consistant-15 minute interval service with consistant journey times seems advantageous at attracting and retaining customers.

Agreed. I am a great proponent of the Taktfahrplan more widely, but in simpler local networks the Merseyrail style regular interval is very powerful in attracting use. You only have to remember one number, then add 30 to it and at any reasonable time of day there is a train. Add 15/45 to it and there's one in the daytime. Dead easy, and really drives usage. No journey planner, no faff, just turn up at a constant, known time.

Even easier if you can work on a 10 minute base, of course - you then only need to remember a number between 0 and 9.

I think that simplicity is a lot more powerful than missing a couple of stops out to speed things up slightly (which of course might mean more sitting around if the half hourly times don't suit).

 

[Greybeard33]

And the only place Liverpool Airport is a serious competitor with Manchester is in the fantasies of its management

I live near Manchester Airport but I have flown from Liverpool. Fares can be lower and/or times more convenient, and the quicker check-in and security procedures offset the extra time travelling to the airport.

 

[najaB]

With the current disaster that is the 25kV electrification programme - this is hardly realistic.

However, the 'current disaster' wouldn't exist for any future schemes as they would be implemented to the same standards as applied when they were designed.

 

[Greybeard33]

For those who were saying that Warrington C can't handle terminating traffic, the previous service pattern was, per hour:

1 x CT Liverpool-Norwich
1 x TPE Liverpool-Sunderland
1 x FNW Liverpool-Manchester Airport semifast
1 x FNW Liverpool-Warrington C all stations
0.5 x FNW Manchester-Warrington C all stations

So there were no more than 2tph terminating with 3tphpd through. Upthread there have been suggestions of up to 6tph terminating at Warrington Central. Merseyrail trains currently have 4 minutes scheduled recovery time at Hunts Cross, whereas a through train occupies a platform for no more than 1 minute.

With a mix of through and terminating services the two Warrington Central platforms (which are only 120m long, so could not be double occupied) would have to be used bi-directionally, with a high risk of knock-on delays in case of any disruption. I doubt that it would be feasible to rebuild the station with an island platform, so passengers would have to trek through the subway to change between Liverpool and Manchester terminators. That would go down like a lead balloon with Warrington West/Widnes to Manchester commuters!

 

[daikilo]

Agreed. I am a great proponent of the Taktfahrplan more widely, but in simpler local networks the Merseyrail style regular interval is very powerful in attracting use. You only have to remember one number, then add 30 to it and at any reasonable time of day there is a train. Add 15/45 to it and there's one in the daytime. Dead easy, and really drives usage. No journey planner, no faff, just turn up at a constant, known time.

Even easier if you can work on a 10 minute base, of course - you then only need to remember a number between 0 and 9.

I think that simplicity is a lot more powerful than missing a couple of stops out to speed things up slightly (which of course might mean more sitting around if the half hourly times don't suit).

Neil, I agree in principle, but here we have a significant number of different flows and 2 "destination" stations in Liverpool, hence starting points for the return. Combining flows usually leads to more stops hence slower journeys (albeit with opportunities maybe at a higher frequency), trying to cater for each separately is a disaster, and this is the risk with a so-called "express" stopping only at a few stations if it upsets other services.

Also, e.g. 00, 10, 30, 40 for stoppers can be memorised by many provided it is constant throughout the day.

 

[Chester1]

Can Liverpool Central handle more passengers without spending hundreds of millions on new platforms or building a new station between Central and Moorfields? A Lime Street all stops service to Warrington Central would be allow for all other services to be withdrawn from Mossley Hill and West Allerton. Such a service could be run by Merseyrail using AC or dual volt versions of their new trains, with the same platform alterations made. Perhaps a terminating platform could be built at Warrington Central but it would probably be very expensive. Combined with fast and semi-fast Northern services from Lime Street to Manchester it would be hard to campaign successfully against Southport services being cut back to South Parkway. Alternatively Northern would need 3 x 769s to run a bi or tri mode service all stops between Lime Street to Warrington Central. 4 coaches might be excessive capacity though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool Central needs a rebuild anyway, and that's going to be easier now while there's not an awful lot on top of it than when that land eventually gets properly built on.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would it be useful for the line to be electrified at 25kV between Hunts Cross and Trafford Park and extend Merseyrail Northern line services through to Manchester Piccadilly and possibly the Airport using dual voltage EMUs?

If there was a business case to connect the Wirral line with new connections in the Liverpool city centre, they could also work through to Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it be useful for the line to be electrified at 25kV between Hunts Cross and Trafford Park and extend Merseyrail services through to Manchester Piccadilly and possibly the Airport using dual voltage EMUs?

I think making Merseyrail run that far off its patch would complicate it too much and make it less reliable. You could however run a Lime St-Manchester Picc service using EMUs which would be better for the local stations because of the better acceleration.

 

[HSTEd]

So there were no more than 2tph terminating with 3tphpd through. Upthread there have been suggestions of up to 6tph terminating at Warrington Central. Merseyrail trains currently have 4 minutes scheduled recovery time at Hunts Cross, whereas a through train occupies a platform for no more than 1 minute.

That level of occupancy could potentially have all the services served by a single platform! Let alone a Kirkby style split.

You could fill in one line and have a single platform that extends onto the bridges at both ends, then have a double occupied platform of almost arbitrary length

That would go down like a lead balloon with Warrington West/Widnes to Manchester commuters!

That's a relatively small portion of traffic of a relatively minor station

 

[mcnw35282]

Would it cost a lot of money to switch the Warrington bound City line and Northern lines around? That way there's no conflict. Think there's just about enough clearance to extend the track through platform 3 past the building.

 

[Greybeard33]

Warrington Central - Hunts Cross is 20 minutes
Hunts Cross - Liverpool Central is 18 minutes
So 38 minutes

The current four trains an hour from Central to Lime Street appear to take 22, 26, 31 and 38 minutes. Which means the trains would be on average ~9 minutes slower. However any speed improvements from faster acceleating electric trains will tend to erase that advantage - and them there is the advantage to the passengers of the clock face timetable to consider.

EDIT:

In another hour (~11:30-12:30AM on the 2nd September 2017) there are trains at 1146, 1157, 1211, 1230.
They take 39, 34, 41 and 29 minutes, for an average journey time of ~36 minutes, so only two minutes quicker.

Having a random grab bag of train times is not helpful for the passengers I would imagine.

In my experience passengers between Warrington Central and Lime Street prefer to use the semi-fasts - the stoppers arrive at Lime Street only a couple of minutes before the following semi-fast, and depart Lime Street only a couple of minutes after the preceding semi-fast, so there is no point in using them. Mon-Fri off-peak times are consistent from hour to hour and it is roughly a half-hourly service. Eastbound time is 22 minutes for the TPE and 26 minutes for the EMT (which calls at Widnes). Westbound timings include end of journey padding, so are not comparable with Merseyrail times to Liverpool Central.

I am sure journey time increases of 12/16 minutes would be unacceptable to regular users, even with an increased frequency.

 

[HSTEd]

They potentially save 15 minutes of waiting if they just miss a train though. So I think for most users it probably comes out a wash.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would it cost a lot of money to switch the Warrington bound City line and Northern lines around? That way there's no conflict. Think there's just about enough clearance to extend the track through platform 3 past the building.

I think the substation(?) building just east of Hunts Cross would have to be relocated to enable Platform 3 to become a through platform - it is too close to the end of the platform at the moment. Then there would be the cost of altering the signalling as well as slewing the tracks. So not cheap.

 

[Greybeard33]

They potentially save 15 minutes of waiting if they just miss a train though. So I think for most users it probably comes out a wash.

Most users do not rock up at random times for a 2tph service - they learn or check the times and plan their journey accordingly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most users do not rock up at random times for a 2tph service - they learn or check the times and plan their journey accordingly.

They do, but if it's a choice between the xx00 meaning they get to work 25 minutes early or the xx30 meaning 5 minutes late, they waste 25 minutes. With a 4tph service they could get the xx15. Even if the 15 minute frequency was 10 minutes slower they have still saved time.

 

[HSTEd]

Having to plan a journey discourages casual use however

 

[daikilo]

Having to plan a journey discourages casual use however

And mobile phone apps encourages it.

 

[MarkyT]

Would it cost a lot of money to switch the Warrington bound City line and Northern lines around? That way there's no conflict. Think there's just about enough clearance to extend the track through platform 3 past the building.

The island could be narrowed somewhat at it's eastern end to allow this, although that might result in some work on the shelter and footbridge. I think the building beyond the east end is a signalling relay room, so very expensive to move unless the work was planned to coincide with a signalling renewal scheme so new equipment housings could be arranged clear of the revised alignment. If narrowing at the east end made clearances or curves too tight to have tracks on both sides then the platform face on the north side might be shorted at the east and extended to compensate through the wide metal span of bridge at the west end.

http://www.townend.me/files/huntscross.pdf