North should "take control" of transport

[Shaw S Hunter]

er no.... i mentioned the fact that local councils own the airport body, which my understanding is what TFN would look like. Nobody actually knows what it will look like in the future in detail, but nobody is ruling out some sort of private holding. We simply dont know yet....but I ll remind you that Franchises are indeed in the private sector, and they will be having a big say in this.

Try looking at the TfN website. As things stand TfN is constituted as a partnership between the various local authorities and the various Local Enterprise Partnerships, LEPs themselves being voluntary patnerships between local authorities and businesses. Note that the private sector involvement in LEPs is effectively by invitation only. Also note that TfN remains accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Transport and that all funding decisions will necessarily require DfT approval. The real significance of TfN is that that planning decisions will be taken at the devolved level rather than in Whitehall although it is reasonable to expect that ways will be found to involve private sector finance in any projects which are taken forward. This is not at all the same as private sector holdings in TfN itself. In effect TfN is like a former BR Regional board able to make significant decisions but still accountable to the SoS.

Whereas as Manchester Airports Group is an arms length company with a monetary value to its holdings, similar to the once common local authority bus companies (post Transport Act 1985). But the shares are not publicly traded.

It could be sped up a little, but the demand is more of a web than fast services to one place, so capacity and connectivity are more important. The model needed is more like Nederlandse Spoorwegen or SBB than HS2.

Both said railways have spent considerable sums on infrastructure improvements on things like new lines and grade separated junctions at key locations (look around southern Amsterdam or Utrecht for all the railway flyovers). Yet in this country we seem to be deliberately avoiding building such things on any scale except as part of genuine HS lines. Cameron/Osborne (in particular) and subsequently May too (less enthusiastically) have talked about the need to rebalance the economy yet the current government seem determined to do things on the cheap, especially away from London & the South-East. The examples of how to do these things are clear to see on the continent: perhaps Westminster and Whitehall suffer too much from "not invented here" syndrome, made worse by the Brexit atmosphere.

 

[The Ham]

Of course trains are less busy in the north than the London conurbation. Driving is a realistic alternative in many cases. The needs of the north ore different, but the foremost need is economic regeneration which needs to be stimulated, and which should be the priority of any government which strives to rebalance the distorted economy of the UK. If the cities on the transpennine route became economic powerhouses, there would be an inescapable need to improve the railway. However (chickens, eggs and all that) it's surely unarguable that a better infrastructure would attract investors and improve the economy. If the government really believed in 'the Northern Powerhouse' it would act now (or should have done years ago).

The train services that I was thinking about are West and South of Woking, so hardly within London, although they are obviously effected by serving London.

Otherwise there's nothing else in your post I disagree with, the North needs investment so that it can thrive. However that investment should be on what is best for the North, not just because London is getting a shiny new railway, so must we.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except huge capacity additions that do not reduce journey times drastically will never wash their face because they won't grow the passenger base sufficiently.

I think you'd be surprised. I think there is huge suppressed demand there, and the car is becoming an ever-worse option and being increasingly rejected by the young.

We need ten percent growth sustained for years to get anywhere.
And that means you need an epochal improvement in service quality (and I mean things people actually care about rather than whether their train has a BREL works plate in the doorway or not)

Service quality != speed (necessarily).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both said railways have spent considerable sums on infrastructure improvements on things like new lines and grade separated junctions at key locations (look around southern Amsterdam or Utrecht for all the railway flyovers).

I do agree there, but SBB's Neubaustrecken (the tunnels aside) are mainly about line capacity, they aren't true high-speed, topping out at typically 140mph. The concept to me would fit HS2 well, but I just don't think there's the case for it in the North as capacity could be well more than doubled simply by running longer trains on existing service patterns with a mix of SDO and platform extensions.

Getting the North's railway to be one more like SBB in being based on 200m+ regional express/inter regional/IC trains is to me a far better spending target. Get the plans in to electrify everything and dump the 2-car DMU, and go from there.

And as for the North being neglected...have you seen the state of Arriva Trains Wales? OK, they can do a better job of refurbing a Class 158, but there has been no new rolling stock since the 175s (which are in a disgusting condition inside), none is planned and in many places capacity is woeful.

 

[Senex]

I do agree there, but SBB's Neubaustrecken (the tunnels aside) are mainly about line capacity, they aren't true high-speed, topping out at typically 140mph. The concept to me would fit HS2 well, but I just don't think there's the case for it in the North as capacity could be well more than doubled simply by running longer trains on existing service patterns with a mix of SDO and platform extensions.

Getting the North's railway to be one more like SBB in being based on 200m+ regional express/inter regional/IC trains is to me a far better spending target. Get the plans in to electrify everything and dump the 2-car DMU, and go from there.

And as for the North being neglected...have you seen the state of Arriva Trains Wales? OK, they can do a better job of refurbing a Class 158, but there has been no new rolling stock since the 175s (which are in a disgusting condition inside), none is planned and in many places capacity is woeful.

I think the crucial point about SBB (and really NS too) is that the process starts by asking what the desired train service is to be and then how this is to be reliably delivered on the infrastructure. This process identifies where infrastructure improvements are needed and what they need to be. That investment is then delivered, and it delivers a railway where the timetable will work in all but the very worst circumstances. Attention in recent years has, unsurprisingly, been focused on the Lötschberg and Gotthard Base Tunnels simplyh because of the scale of the engineeering, but these are only part of a proper national infrastructure plan. Other parts are the flyovers, diveunders, extra tracks in station throats, etc—all the things needed to make traffic flow freely (if not necessarily faster) and guarantee the Taktfahrplan (and all the things we are so bad at doing in GB).

I agree with you about the desperate need for longer trains in the north—three cars have been absurd for TPE right from their introduction (and as someone else has said, always being in a crowded train very quickly takes away the impression that one is enjoying new stock!), and the Northern rag-bag, including the cast-off 319s, will hardly convince anyone they're travelling on a C21 railway. But the longer trains need to be put into the sort of RE/IR/IC service pattern you suggest, and that pattern needs to be honoured. You should not have the IC-style services calling at suburban stations in the peaks either because there is no line-capacity for stopping services or because those that do run are formed too short. And it's line-capacity where the SBB approach to investment comes in. We do not have the extra platforms in stations or the loops for traffic regulation any more to allow a proper mix of fast and slow services. So the British solution, except on the London main lines, is to ruin the fast services.

Are we still supposed to see what the proposals for upgrading the Trans-Pennine line are this autumn? If so, it will be very interesting to see how much attention has been paid to the 40-minute Manchester-Leeds target (not really very impressive) and how much to the capacity question and the need for local trains as well as freight and fast passenger services to use the principal route. I imagine the Swiss solution might well be a judicious mix of new construction (for no more that 200 km/h on the relatively short sections involved) and significant junction and station improvements.

(And as for Arriva Trains Wales, yes, pretty horrible—like the South-West. It is really interesting to see the two areas that do do well are London & South-East, where the Westminster brigade congregate and look after their locality even under Labour governments, and Scotland with its proper devolved powers. How Wales must wish it had been treated the same way! (But then the English Regions would look on at the Celtic fringe with even more fully-justified envy.))

 

[urbophile]

The train services that I was thinking about are West and South of Woking, so hardly within London, although they are obviously effected by serving London.

Otherwise there's nothing else in your post I disagree with, the North needs investment so that it can thrive. However that investment should be on what is best for the North, not just because London is getting a shiny new railway, so must we.

Oh I agree. if 'HS3' means the equivalent of HS2 across the north, so perhaps serving Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and leaving out significant places like Warrington and Huddersfield, it would be pointless. What we need is better connectivity – fast expresses between a few major centres, with connections to the others, won't help much. But there needs to be a new link (or two) across the Pennines to cut down the journey time between Manchester and Leeds/Sheffield.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Oh I agree. if 'HS3' means the equivalent of HS2 across the north, so perhaps serving Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and leaving out significant places like Warrington and Huddersfield, it would be pointless. What we need is better connectivity – fast expresses between a few major centres, with connections to the others, won't help much. But there needs to be a new link (or two) across the Pennines to cut down the journey time between Manchester and Leeds/Sheffield.

Maybe something like the WCML and call it the Cross Pennine Main Line. It starts at Lime Street and terminates at Paragon and calls at John Lennon, Widnes, Warrington, Man Airport, Stockport, Piccadilly, Victoria, Oldham, Huddersfeild, Halifax, Bradford, Leeds and York (With a branch to Sheffield via HS2), Relieving TransPennine of some pressure.

 

[Senex]

Maybe something like the WCML and call it the Cross Pennine Main Line. It starts at Lime Street and terminates at Paragon and calls at John Lennon, Widnes, Warrington, Man Airport, Stockport, Piccadilly, Victoria, Oldham, Huddersfeild, Halifax, Bradford, Leeds and York (With a branch to Sheffield via HS2), Relieving TransPennine of some pressure.

Twelve stops between Liverpool and York? That would probably be slower than today's lousy service!

 

[HSTEd]

Twelve stops between Liverpool and York? That would probably be slower than today's lousy service!

Its about a hundred and ten miles or so.
Which means a stop spacing of something like 16km.

You might be able to get the average speed above 90mph but it won't be by much, and it would require 140mph top speed throughout, and an all new alignment that allows Class 395 esque stock to accelerate at full rate right out of the platforms.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I do agree there, but SBB's Neubaustrecken (the tunnels aside) are mainly about line capacity, they aren't true high-speed, topping out at typically 140mph.

Equally the lesson of WCRM is that extra capacity is cheaper to build as new lines where possible, and once you make that decision then the new lines really should be built to modern standards, not Victorian ones. The top speed will depend on where else the trains using the line are likely to find themselves running. The Swiss are highly unlikely to ever build a true HS network so their NBS are as "slow" as 225kph because that's the effective limit of their traction. Similarly the speed on HS3 will depend on whether trains running over it will also find use on HS2 or not.

The concept to me would fit HS2 well, but I just don't think there's the case for it in the North as capacity could be well more than doubled simply by running longer trains on existing service patterns with a mix of SDO and platform extensions.

Getting the North's railway to be one more like SBB in being based on 200m+ regional express/inter regional/IC trains is to me a far better spending target. Get the plans in to electrify everything and dump the 2-car DMU, and go from there.

I agree that longer trains should form part of the near-term solution but even that will need lots of platform extensions. Once that starts to require station throats/approaches to also be rebuilt then the overall cost and disruption starts to make new lines worth adding to the overall scheme.

And as for the North being neglected...have you seen the state of Arriva Trains Wales? OK, they can do a better job of refurbing a Class 158, but there has been no new rolling stock since the 175s (which are in a disgusting condition inside), none is planned and in many places capacity is woeful.

True enough. But this thread is specifically about the north and TfN. The Welsh are more than capable of making their own case (though some of the current politicians there are making a poor job of it!) and can be discussed in another thread.

 

[xotGD]

Current typical schedule Leeds - Manchester Piccadilly or Victoria is 51 minutes with one stop at Huddersfield. Some Sunday terminators at Victoria take 49 minutes. Why should new trains take longer?

And the rest of the trains that go to Picc take around 55 minutes, an hour if you stay on to Oxford Road. In future I guess it might take longer to get to Picc, when the train is routed via Vic first. Hopefully I'll save a few minutes getting to/from Oxford Road - and have more than one direct train per hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Equally the lesson of WCRM is that extra capacity is cheaper to build as new lines where possible

Not that simple. I genuinely don't think the North, if it moves to proper-length trains on existing frequencies, will need such a thing for many, many years, if ever.

I agree that longer trains should form part of the near-term solution but even that will need lots of platform extensions. Once that starts to require station throats/approaches to also be rebuilt then the overall cost and disruption starts to make new lines worth adding to the overall scheme.

You need to separate stations from lines. You can add new stations to existing lines, and you can build NBSs with no new stations like the Swiss do. New lines are about line capacity, and only line capacity. Other than the Deansgate-Picc stretch, there aren't a lot of lines in the North with that problem.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

And the new DMUs and EMUs for Northern.

And the forthcoming TPE near-complete fleet replacement.

And don't forget - the North got 15x while the South East was soldiering on with knackered slamdoor stock.

There is more still to do of course, but I don't get why people claim the North is badly done by just because of one particular class of old rolling stock.

Oh dear. Another thread about investment (or lack of) in "The North" turns into a slanging match between who can come up with the most extreme example where a local situation doesn't quite match the overall narrative. It's all "we had to put up with slammers for longer!" (At least you had the capacity, and you did get lots of new stock in the end) Or "What about the 333s/185s" (The former only serve a handful of fairly self-contained routes, the latter are too small in number and again only serve larger places on a limited number of routes). Even "The North gets 390s/180s/800s" which are or will be only much use if heading to the South-East or commuting on, again, a limited number of routes. The fact that there are 3 Pendolinos an hour between Manchester and Stockport is just a side-effect of the high-frequency Manchester to London service.

The North has barely even been the bridesmaid for decades. Not only do we need investment to match the per-capita figure for London and the former NSE area but we need more on top to correct the historical biases of the past. Whether HS3/whatever is the best project is another matter, of course. There's equally a case to be made for reviving those tram schemes in Leeds and Liverpool, and/or improving the existing infrastructure.

Disclaimer: similar arguments could (should?) be made for investment in areas such as the Cardiff Valleys or the "greater Bristol" area.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Not that simple. I genuinely don't think the North, if it moves to proper-length trains on existing frequencies, will need such a thing for many, many years, if ever.



You need to separate stations from lines. You can add new stations to existing lines, and you can build NBSs with no new stations like the Swiss do. New lines are about line capacity, and only line capacity. Other than the Deansgate-Picc stretch, there aren't a lot of lines in the North with that problem.

Consider Salford Crescent, an important interchange station for local journeys. Thanks to the junctions at each end it has been deemed unacceptable to stop anything longer than 6x23m there regardless of SDO. Yet booming demand on both the Bolton and Atherton lines means train lengths will soon need to be of that order leaving no scope for further growth unless you bite the bullet and completely rebuild the whole area.

Consider TP(North) where current plans are already a massive compromise between the needs of through passengers and those making more local journeys. A future HS3 between the HS2 stations in both Manchester and Leeds, possibly without intermediate stops, would allow those conflicts to be resolved without the need for massive reconstruction of almost the entire route. Or route it, as new construction, via Bradford and provide some relief to the Calder Valley route too.

In short it's about "the vision thing". Crossrail and Crossrail 2 have been born of such thinking but it seems grand visions for the north are unacceptable to much of the southern based establishment. Hopefully the creation of TfN will overcome such blinkered thinking and allow the north to develop a public transport system which meets a far greater range of needs than it does presently. Perhaps we might even be proud of it too.

 

[SF-02]

I think the crucial point about SBB (and really NS too) is that the process starts by asking what the desired train service is to be and then how this is to be reliably delivered on the infrastructure. This process identifies where infrastructure improvements are needed and what they need to be. That investment is then delivered, and it delivers a railway where the timetable will work in all but the very worst circumstances. Attention in recent years has, unsurprisingly, been focused on the Lötschberg and Gotthard Base Tunnels simplyh because of the scale of the engineeering, but these are only part of a proper national infrastructure plan. Other parts are the flyovers, diveunders, extra tracks in station throats, etc—all the things needed to make traffic flow freely (if not necessarily faster) and guarantee the Taktfahrplan (and all the things we are so bad at doing in GB).

I agree with you about the desperate need for longer trains in the north—three cars have been absurd for TPE right from their introduction (and as someone else has said, always being in a crowded train very quickly takes away the impression that one is enjoying new stock!), and the Northern rag-bag, including the cast-off 319s, will hardly convince anyone they're travelling on a C21 railway. But the longer trains need to be put into the sort of RE/IR/IC service pattern you suggest, and that pattern needs to be honoured. You should not have the IC-style services calling at suburban stations in the peaks either because there is no line-capacity for stopping services or because those that do run are formed too short.

Are we still supposed to see what the proposals for upgrading the Trans-Pennine line are this autumn? If so, it will be very interesting to see how much attention has been paid to the 40-minute Manchester-Leeds target (not really very impressive) and how much to the capacity question and the need for local trains as well as freight and fast passenger services to use the principal route. I imagine the Swiss solution might well be a judicious mix of new construction (for no more that 200 km/h on the relatively short sections involved) and significant junction and station improvements.

(And as for Arriva Trains Wales, yes, pretty horrible—like the South-West. It is really interesting to see the two areas that do do well are London & South-East, where the Westminster brigade congregate and look after their locality even under Labour governments, and Scotland with its proper devolved powers. How Wales must wish it had been treated the same way! (But then the English Regions would look on at the Celtic fringe with even more fully-justified envy.))

Lumping all of south east England together isn't useful. SouthEastern Metro trains to NW Kent and SE London are grim. 25 years old and never had a refurb. Grayling blocked cascaded trains now in sidings doing nothing after Gibb report suggested it a year or so ago. Other cascades havnt happened going back 5 years. No additional stock for about 12 years.

SE longer distance are much better however. There's massive variations within SE England franchises let alone the country.

Grayling has no desire to invest yet blocks devolution.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Consider Salford Crescent, an important interchange station for local journeys. Thanks to the junctions at each end it has been deemed unacceptable to stop anything longer than 6x23m there regardless of SDO. Yet booming demand on both the Bolton and Atherton lines means train lengths will soon need to be of that order leaving no scope for further growth unless you bite the bullet and completely rebuild the whole area.

Had Salford Crescent station been constructed as a four-platform junction station in the land where the Atherton and Bolton lines diverge, matters would have been far better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Consider Salford Crescent, an important interchange station for local journeys. Thanks to the junctions at each end it has been deemed unacceptable to stop anything longer than 6x23m there regardless of SDO. Yet booming demand on both the Bolton and Atherton lines means train lengths will soon need to be of that order leaving no scope for further growth unless you bite the bullet and completely rebuild the whole area.

Having looked at an aerial view of Salford Crescent it strikes me that there would be plenty of scope to rejig the lines to the north to extend the platforms, particularly if you were willing to stop everything there (as would arguably make sense for interchange given the future split of services between Picc and Vic) and so remove the bypass line, which could allow the construction of a wider island platform better suited to large flows.

Consider TP(North) where current plans are already a massive compromise between the needs of through passengers and those making more local journeys.

Sort-of, but I think a service recast along more German style lines, with some targeted infrastructure changes such as platform loops, would help there. One thing the UK has always been terrible at is designing the service first then building the targeted infrastructure to match it. The Swiss do that, and it really works. Crikey, Lausanne-Renens has a tram line that is mostly single track - the passing loops have been installed in locations required for the desired timetable.

I think that sort of split will come long-term with the IC-style rolling stock coming soon on TPE. OK, TPE will operate local services too, but there will be more of a distinct split.

 

[158756]

Consider Salford Crescent, an important interchange station for local journeys. Thanks to the junctions at each end it has been deemed unacceptable to stop anything longer than 6x23m there regardless of SDO. Yet booming demand on both the Bolton and Atherton lines means train lengths will soon need to be of that order leaving no scope for further growth unless you bite the bullet and completely rebuild the whole area.
.

Salford Crescent would need rebuilding if all the trains had six coaches and were packed. Now I haven't been over there for a while, but last I knew, Northern ran no six car trains on routes via Salford Crescent, and we don't know if they will at all during the current franchise, I haven't heard any indication they will. Probably 20 years off needing doing, even if rail traffic growth continues, which is very far from certain.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Having looked at an aerial view of Salford Crescent it strikes me that there would be plenty of scope to rejig the lines to the north to extend the platforms, particularly if you were willing to stop everything there (as would arguably make sense for interchange given the future split of services between Picc and Vic) and so remove the bypass line, which could allow the construction of a wider island platform better suited to large flows.

There are already plans, though not funded, to make Salford Crescent a 4-platform station by building platforms either side of the existing island but I don't think there is any expectation of significant changes to the tracks. Once again I think the ideal would be grade separation, at least on the western approaches even if this entailed the, necessary extra, platforms being at slightly different levels. But grade separation seems to be considered a luxury item by the DfT.

Salford Crescent would need rebuilding if all the trains had six coaches and were packed. Now I haven't been over there for a while, but last I knew, Northern ran no six car trains on routes via Salford Crescent, and we don't know if they will at all during the current franchise, I haven't heard any indication they will. Probably 20 years off needing doing, even if rail traffic growth continues, which is very far from certain.

There is already a number of peak-hour 4-car workings bursting at the seams so short of shoe-horning additional services into the peak-hour timetable (very difficult) 6-car trains will be needed very much sooner than later. Indeed during the wintertime commuting peak such trains are leaving passengers behind at Westhoughton and Bolton with passengers from Wigan and Horwich/Lostock packed like sardines. It won't take 20 years of growth, it'll become an issue before the current franchise runs its term.

Sort-of, but I think a service recast along more German style lines, with some targeted infrastructure changes such as platform loops, would help there. One thing the UK has always been terrible at is designing the service first then building the targeted infrastructure to match it. The Swiss do that, and it really works. Crikey, Lausanne-Renens has a tram line that is mostly single track - the passing loops have been installed in locations required for the desired timetable.

I think that sort of split will come long-term with the IC-style rolling stock coming soon on TPE. OK, TPE will operate local services too, but there will be more of a distinct split.

If only you were right. In reality the proper separation of longer-distance services from local ones needs multi-tracking once you reach a certain frequency. The CLC mainline carries two fast(ish!) and two stopping trains each way per hour on a purely two track route (east of Allerton) and the timetable only works by the stopping trains skip-stopping at certain stations. Platforms loops would help but would also make the stopping services even less attractive for passengers making local journeys across whatever location the looping takes place at. Far better, and more reliable, would be 4-tracks for several miles at the right point on the route, say Glazebrook to Warrington.

And the situation is even worse in Yorkshire where pathing around the whole Leeds/Huddersfield/Halifax/Bradford (Interchange) area is one horribly complex compromise with fast and slow trains in permanent danger of tripping each other up. The various routes between Leeds and Sheffield are approaching the same level of saturation though at least there HS2 will take away some of the fast trains. Once again running fewer but longer trains could provide a short-term fix, though needing some expenditure on stations, but if passenger numbers continue to grow we will need to start spending serious money just on the existing network.

One thing about railways around London & the South-East is that routes are overwhelmingly radial which simplifies the separation of different service types. The busiest lines are already 4-track and many junctions are grade separated both of which make a big difference. The north has far more complications in those respects and ignoring them is holding back rail's potential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The CLC mainline carries two fast(ish!) and two stopping trains each way per hour on a purely two track route (east of Allerton) and the timetable only works by the stopping trains skip-stopping at certain stations.

Because of glacially slow DMUs. Wire it and use high acceleration EMUs and it won't be half as much of an issue.

Edit: In any case, the old timetable of 2 fast (1 TPE 1 CT), 1 semi and 1 slow at each end (both terminating at Warrington) worked OK-ish. Capacity could and should have been increased by stopping running 2-car DMUs on each of those rather than pratting around with a less reliable, more frequent timetable. There was probably scope to between triple and quadruple capacity on those services overall by doing nothing other than ordering new 5 or 6x23m DMUs with SDO.

And yet the idiocy of ordering 3-car units for TPE went ahead. Not just any 3-car units, but ones that are so wasteful of space that they carry far fewer passengers than the 3-car 158s they replaced.

I fear that the new 5-car units will, with growth, suffer the same problem very soon, and that 8-car would perhaps have been a better choice. Maybe we will see a follow-on order for more LHCS to extend those sets at least.

 

[The Ham]

Oh dear. Another thread about investment (or lack of) in "The North" turns into a slanging match between who can come up with the most extreme example where a local situation doesn't quite match the overall narrative. It's all "we had to put up with slammers for longer!" (At least you had the capacity, and you did get lots of new stock in the end) Or "What about the 333s/185s" (The former only serve a handful of fairly self-contained routes, the latter are too small in number and again only serve larger places on a limited number of routes). Even "The North gets 390s/180s/800s" which are or will be only much use if heading to the South-East or commuting on, again, a limited number of routes. The fact that there are 3 Pendolinos an hour between Manchester and Stockport is just a side-effect of the high-frequency Manchester to London service.

The North has barely even been the bridesmaid for decades. Not only do we need investment to match the per-capita figure for London and the former NSE area but we need more on top to correct the historical biases of the past. Whether HS3/whatever is the best project is another matter, of course. There's equally a case to be made for reviving those tram schemes in Leeds and Liverpool, and/or improving the existing infrastructure.

Disclaimer: similar arguments could (should?) be made for investment in areas such as the Cardiff Valleys or the "greater Bristol" area.

I would agree that there is lots that needs to be done to make up for lost post investment. However unless it involves building a new line the likelihood of getting a higher per capita figure is going to be slim to none for the very reason that those who currently use the railways will not tolerate it.

The reason for that statement is that if you are going to invest (fire sake of an example) £1 billion per year on railways in the North (the current Crossrail spend per year), how are you going to do so without significant engineering works, to the point were you could even cripple a significant portion of the rail network at weekends.

Yes you could throw resources at the problem (i.e. close an entire line for several weekend and do electrification, platform lengthening, be signals, etc.), but that would just make those projects more expensive and so less worth doing.

Just ask those who have been having to cope with the Waterloo works this month how they have been finding traveling and chances are they will be very much looking forward to next week when things return to normality.

Yet it is worth throwing money at that to get it built quickly because of the number of people it will benefit.

 

[yorksrob]

I find all this talk of Salford Crescent not being able to cope with six carriage long Northern services extremely surprising, particularly given the platforms are surely long enough and the platform was recently cleared of clutter.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I find all this talk of Salford Crescent not being able to cope with six carriage long Northern services extremely surprising, particularly given the platforms are surely long enough and the platform was recently cleared of clutter.

Indeed so, what was the recent platform lengthening there supposed to achieve?

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed so, what was the recent platform lengthening there supposed to achieve?

Easier passenger flows along the platform I believe (particularly as the booking hall had been moved off the platform).

 

[158756]

I find all this talk of Salford Crescent not being able to cope with six carriage long Northern services extremely surprising, particularly given the platforms are surely long enough and the platform was recently cleared of clutter.

Salford Crescent can take six coaches. It would need lengthening for anything more. But given that six coaches are not deemed necessary, never mind insufficient, no further work needs to be done at Salford Crescent.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Easier passenger flows along the platform I believe (particularly as the booking hall had been moved off the platform).

This has the additional benefit of improving sightlines during the dispatch process which had become an issue prior to the "de-cluttering" exercise.

Salford Crescent can take six coaches. It would need lengthening for anything more. But given that six coaches are not deemed necessary, never mind insufficient, no further work needs to be done at Salford Crescent.

True for today in 2017. But provides minimal future proofing. When some peak-hour trains need to be longer, and that day will arrive quite soon if growth continues in line with recent trends, then it will result in those trains being unable to stop there due to the issue of fouling the junctions. As such Salford Crescent's role as an interchange station will be somewhat eroded. The fact that longer trains are not already in operation is entirely due to the long-term hangover from the previous Northern franchise having been let on a no-growth basis.

 

[Bevan Price]

(In "stirring mode".)

What we need is home rule for "The North" - a federal UK, with each "region" free to decide their own policies, financial arrangements, etc. The central government would just be left to take care of things like defence, foreign policy, etc.

"The North" would then be able to decide its own rail transport policy / investment priorities, without the dead hand of Whiehall (DfT, Treasury, etc.) continually meddling and often favouring "London / South East" when it comes to finance. (I have nothing against London & its residents, but it does seem to get more than a fair share of investment money.)

 

[adrock1976]

(In "stirring mode".)

What we need is home rule for "The North" - a federal UK, with each "region" free to decide their own policies, financial arrangements, etc. The central government would just be left to take care of things like defence, foreign policy, etc.

"The North" would then be able to decide its own rail transport policy / investment priorities, without the dead hand of Whiehall (DfT, Treasury, etc.) continually meddling and often favouring "London / South East" when it comes to finance. (I have nothing against London & its residents, but it does seem to get more than a fair share of investment money.)

I am a supporter of progressive federalism for the whole of the UK rather than Scottish independence.

Regarding London, although a fine city, there is only so many people who want to permanently reside there can fit within the M25.

What is needed is to make the towns that were once known for manufacturing/coal and steel production desirable again. It would help economic regeneration, and would also ease the pressure of travelling into and out of London. Other large cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool that have neighbouring industrial towns nearby would also benefit from economic regeneration too, and with not so many people needing to travel into or out of those large cities.

 

[Robertj21a]

(In "stirring mode".)

What we need is home rule for "The North" - a federal UK, with each "region" free to decide their own policies, financial arrangements, etc. The central government would just be left to take care of things like defence, foreign policy, etc.

"The North" would then be able to decide its own rail transport policy / investment priorities, without the dead hand of Whiehall (DfT, Treasury, etc.) continually meddling and often favouring "London / South East" when it comes to finance. (I have nothing against London & its residents, but it does seem to get more than a fair share of investment money.)

Presumably, all the taxes raised in The North would stay in the north, and all the taxes raised in The South would stay in the south...........???

:roll:

 

[fowler9]

Because of glacially slow DMUs. Wire it and use high acceleration EMUs and it won't be half as much of an issue.

Edit: In any case, the old timetable of 2 fast (1 TPE 1 CT), 1 semi and 1 slow at each end (both terminating at Warrington) worked OK-ish. Capacity could and should have been increased by stopping running 2-car DMUs on each of those rather than pratting around with a less reliable, more frequent timetable. There was probably scope to between triple and quadruple capacity on those services overall by doing nothing other than ordering new 5 or 6x23m DMUs with SDO.

And yet the idiocy of ordering 3-car units for TPE went ahead. Not just any 3-car units, but ones that are so wasteful of space that they carry far fewer passengers than the 3-car 158s they replaced.

I fear that the new 5-car units will, with growth, suffer the same problem very soon, and that 8-car would perhaps have been a better choice. Maybe we will see a follow-on order for more LHCS to extend those sets at least.

To be honest if the twice hourly slow trains on the CLC route went back to hourly services with longer trains I would probably just stop using it. Admittedly I live close to Liverpool by West Allerton station where an hourly service would mean it would make more sense for me to use the bus in most circumstances. This could of course solve capacity issues. Ha ha.