North TPE May 2014 proposed timetable

[pemma]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the 3.5 hour gap with Manchester Airport-York overnight but the 70 minute frequency for overnight services in the other direction.

What we have to remember about Manchester Airport to North East traffic is that it's a proportionally small amount of traffic. The average Newcastle resident is not going to Orlando five times a year - in fact the average Newcastle resident has probably never even been to North America. I imagine the Liverpool to West/North Yorkshire traffic figure is much higher.

Are we talking about Dec 2014 or post-Northern Hub?
In Dec 2014 EMUs could take over LIV-WBQ/MIA/WGN/PRE (via Huyton) but not to MVC or BPN until Dec 2015.
Seems odd not to use an EMU to MIA (unless there aren't any!).
It would mean no use of the new wires Huyton-Parkside for a year.
I appreciate it must be difficult for NT to plan when there is so much uncertainty about EMU availability.

Read post 21 as well, that should help answer your question.

I'm talking about May 2014 - the date of the proposed TPE changes. Northern aren't planning a May 2014 timetable as it's beyond the end of their franchise but any necessary changes will have to be included in the new franchise e.g. extra local services through Bolton.

 

[markydh]

Manchester Airport is the third biggest in the UK based on total passenger numbers with circa 60 airlines operating from it running to whole multitude of destinations. Newcastle Airport is the 11th biggest in the UK with 20 airlines serving it running to far less destinations (with hardly any outside of Europe or the Med area other than the flagship Emirates daily flight to Dubai and a summer only 1 day a week only flight to Orlando). They just cannot be compared. There are no direct flights between the two either, which is why the Newcastle - Manchester Airport service is such an important link, hence I believe it would have been better to have kept it as is for now with the extra York starter being diverted via Victoria to Liverpool.

 

[Stats]

(with hardly any outside of Europe or the Med area other than the flagship Emirates daily flight to Dubai and a summer only 1 day a week only flight to Orlando).

Two flights a week to Orlando, and you forgot Cancun, Toronto, and Barbados. The Dubai flight is so successful they are increasing capacity later this year, as are a number of other operators, and the airport is working hard at getting a New York flight.

Anyway back to rail...

 

[Eagle]

Manchester Airport is the third biggest in the UK based on total passenger numbers with circa 60 airlines operating from it running to whole multitude of destinations. Newcastle Airport is the 11th biggest in the UK with 20 airlines serving it running to far less destinations (with hardly any outside of Europe or the Med area other than the flagship Emirates daily flight to Dubai and a summer only 1 day a week only flight to Orlando). They just cannot be compared. There are no direct flights between the two either, which is why the Newcastle - Manchester Airport service is such an important link, hence I believe it would have been better to have kept it as is for now with the extra York starter being diverted via Victoria to Liverpool.

I don't disagree that Manchester airport is an important destination, it's just that Newcastle to the Airport passenger numbers do not support the retention of a through service. And that's all that matters. As mentioned in the thread, we don't see direct services between, say, Bristol and Gatwick, or Southampton and Heathrow, or Leicester and Birmingham Airport. Airport services from afar don't justify through services.

The fact that TPE run a through service now is more of an operational convenience (they need to run a certain number of trains an hour between Piccadilly and the Airport—six, I think—and it is convenient to stick one of these on the tail of a Newcastle service).

 

[pemma]

Here's some media reaction:

Hull's unhappy at not being given more services: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17397734

Barrow's unhappy with a through service reduction: http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/barrow-rail-service-cut-would-hit-firms-1.935796?referrerPath=home

York and Huddersfield will be happy when the changes happen: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9568372.Train_carriages__plan_is_welcomed/
http://www.examiner.co.uk/views-and...me-arrival-of-new-train-fleet-86081-30435585/

 

[cuccir]

Barrow's unhappy with a through service reduction: http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/barrow-rail-service-cut-would-hit-firms-1.935796?referrerPath=home

While it seems direct services will have to be cut, reducing the Furness Line to purely branch status would certainly have some negative effects. As I've said here before, if Barrow must lose these services, it would be nice to see someone like Northern stepping in and connecting up their Leeds-Carnforth trains to the Furness Line for through routes.

I think Barrow - population of over 100,000 in Furness (Barrow+Ulverston+Grange and other villages), and one of Britain's largest manufacturing centres - should at least keep its connections through to Preston, rather than Lancaster. This would integrate it much more satisfactorily into the wider network (one change for Blackpool, one change for York, more trains to Manchester, more trains to Birmignham/London) and would only be a short section of diesels running under electric wires.

 

[IanXC]

Hull's unhappy at not being given more services: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17397734

I suspect Hull would settle for the Manchester Victoria-Selby being extended to Hull which has been mooted. Also is there still the question of where the current Scarborough goes, assuming its not electrified?

 

[pemma]

Also is there still the question of where the current Scarborough goes, assuming its not electrified?

There now seems to be a possibility of it saying how it is: Liverpool-Scarborough via Warrington with a faster Liverpool-York service available through the Liverpool-Newcastle via Chat Moss service.

Having a few diesels remaining on North TPE would still allow diversions via Brighouse and Wakefield during engineering works.

 

[cle]

That's a good idea and covers off the Warrington diesel island issue too.

I think Hull should definitely be wired though. Lots of benefits especially if the Goole route was done also.

On the other hand, Manchester Victoria to Hull might be worthwhile. Would provide more connections I guess - Selby seems a weird place to terminate.

 

[IanXC]

That's a good idea and covers off the Warrington diesel island issue too.

I think Hull should definitely be wired though. Lots of benefits especially if the Goole route was done also.

On the other hand, Manchester Victoria to Hull might be worthwhile. Would provide more connections I guess - Selby seems a weird place to terminate.

Yup Hull should definately be wired, whether the Victoria-Selby service should be swapped to go to Bradford FS and the remainder be attached to something like the Knottingley I don't know but I'm coming round to it!

There's not much point in wiring the Goole route, unless your also doing Doncaster-Sheffield and are happy to make the Yorkshire Coast line at least 2 changes from ECML and XC destinations.

 

[tbtc]

I think Hull should definitely be wired though. Lots of benefits especially if the Goole route was done also

To be fair, most trains through Goole serve Sheffield or Beverley/ Bridlington/ Scarborough, so the best case scenario would only free up some of the hourly Doncaster - Hull trains (assuming that you cut the extensions to Beverley etc from the Donny stoppers).

Since the London - Hull services all run via Selby it makes more sense to delay the Goole electrification until the MML is wired (from Bedford to Doncaster & Moorthorpe), which is when the real savings would happen.

In the meantime there are better cases for electrification in northern England (e.g. Caldervale, the line through Warrington Central, Rose Hill Marple)

 

[Nym]

I think we have proven before that Leeds - Selby - Hull as part of TPE North satisfies the basic 2tph = worth it for Network Rail.

It also removes a significant proportion of Diesel Under Wires running... Namely

Selby - KX 1tp2h (Roughly)
Micklefeild - Manchester 1tph

It also provides a significant 'sparks effect' for both increases in pax numbers and capacity on some key commuter routes. Namely the Selby - Leeds section.

For those who don't know, a wiring of Leeds - Micklefeild - Selby - Hull with the silly little junctioney bits done would mean the following changing to EMU/LHCS EL from DMU / HST

Hull - KX EC 1tpd/dir (Hull - Selby)
Hull - KX HT 7tpd/dir (Hull - Selby)
Hull - York NT ~1tph/dir (Hull - Selby)
Hull - Manchester Piccadilly 1tph/dir (Hull - Micklefeild, assuming TPE N C Electrification)
Selby - Leeds Stopper 1tph/dir (Selby - Micklefeild) Rather than running the current DMU to Victoria or wherever, form up from a different, EMU service.
Hull - Doncaster via Selby NT (Hull - Selby) Potentially more services, abstracting these from the current Hull - Doncaster services, again, possibly linking in with the ~1tp2h HT services to provide 1tph on this route.
(Depart Hull at: 0725, 0925, 1130, 1330, 1420, 1610, 1810, 2010, 2110) Or alternatively simply run this at 1tph standard hourly picking up some major and some minor stops en route. (Hull, Brough, Howden, Selby, Doncaster)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
PS: I'd wire to Beverley as part of York - Beverley re-opening so that the 2tph for that route will be EMU from opening. And then 4tph will be provided between Beverley and Hull, 2tph from York and 2tph from Bridlington.

And yes, I'd have the Yorkshire Coast Line done after the Midland Mainline so that services from Sheffeild - Bridlington can continue as normal, although Scarbrough will continue to cause issues and other projects in the North of England should take priority over this, such as Lostock - Southport, The CLC Line, Metrolink Tram Trains for the ELR and Mid Cheshire Line, Oxford Road Re-Build, Grade Seperation of Ordsall Lane, Exchange Platforms at Victoria or Central Station re-opening (one or the other, either way giving a terminating feed to the Chat Moss and Windsor Bridge Lines, Central would also provide this for the CLC lines, allowing a move to a 6tph hourly pattern)

 

[pemma]

Rose Hill Marple

Are you intending the hourly service to Rose Hill Marple via Hyde Central or the hourly service to Rose Hill Marple via Belle Vue to go over to electrics? If it's the latter then why not do up to New Mills Central, to allow a follow on section for Hazel Grove to Sheffield.

 

[tbtc]

Are you intending the hourly service to Rose Hill Marple via Hyde Central or the hourly service to Rose Hill Marple via Belle Vue to go over to electrics? If it's the latter then why not do up to New Mills Central, to allow a follow on section for Hazel Grove to Sheffield.

At the moment there are two trains an hour from Piccadilly to Rose Hill Marple (via Romiley) and two trains an hour from Piccadilly to New Mills Central (via Romiley).

However, as some of the New Mills Central services extend to Sheffield (bi-hourly M-F, hourly S) that weakens the business case a little.

It'd be fairly simple to do the following though:

• Run all New Mills Central services via Belle Vue, keep this as a diesel service twice an hour
• Electrify Guide Bridge - Rose Hill Marple (Piccadilly - Guide Bridge already being wired as part of the Glossop line, so only a short section would need doing to allow EMUs to run all the way to Rose Hill Marple)
• Run all Rose Hill Marple services via Guide Bridge as EMUs

That means all stations on the Romiley lines could keep their existing number of departures an hour from Manchester without having to make big changes to services.

Ideally I'd suggest going to New Mills Central (I'd suggest a lot of things!), though the case for that is weakened until the whole Hope Valley line is wired up - this was intended as a modest electrification at little cost that would allow some Pacers to be directly replaced.

 

[Nym]

Thing is tbtc, it's less mad than what I'd do and electrify all routes via New Mills and Hazel Grove to Chinley and put bays back in there to have a shed tonne of services into it, and then make the Sheffeild Stopper via Hope Valley a Limited Stop service West of Chinley, and hourly.

 

[pemma]

That means all stations on the Romiley lines could keep their existing number of departures an hour from Manchester without having to make big changes to services.

I think you're may be getting mixed up about where Romiley is or unsure of the current service pattern. Romiley can be served by trains going via Guide Bridge or trains going via Bredbury.

The hourly current frequency is:
* 2 x New Mills Central-Manchester via Bredbury
* 1 x Rose Hill Marple-Manchester via Guide Bridge
* 1 x Rose Hill Marple-Manchester via Bredbury

Sending two services via Guide Bridge will reduce frequency via Bredbury unless you add in a new service, which can't be justified based on current loadings of off-peak trains arriving at or departing the two Marple stations.

 

[Jonny]

Manchester Airport is the third biggest in the UK based on total passenger numbers with circa 60 airlines operating from it running to whole multitude of destinations. Newcastle Airport is the 11th biggest in the UK with 20 airlines serving it running to far less destinations (with hardly any outside of Europe or the Med area other than the flagship Emirates daily flight to Dubai and a summer only 1 day a week only flight to Orlando). They just cannot be compared. There are no direct flights between the two either, which is why the Newcastle - Manchester Airport service is such an important link, hence I believe it would have been better to have kept it as is for now with the extra York starter being diverted via Victoria to Liverpool.

Also, it is a awkward to (Manchester) Victoria from most of Manchester City Centre, and much harder to get to from most of the rest of Manchester. IMO it's going to be easier to go from Piccadilly and change at York for the North-East.

 

[pemma]

Also, it is a awkward to (Manchester) Victoria from most of Manchester City Centre, and much harder to get to from most of the rest of Manchester. IMO it's going to be easier to go from Piccadilly and change at York for the North-East.

Some people have been arguing for years that Victoria is better placed due to the location of the Arndale Centre, The Printworks, Shudehill interchange and The MEN Arena.

However, Piccadilly is better placed for onward rail connections as well as Chorlton Street Coach station, China town, Piccadilly Gardens and the gay village.

A large number of TPE users are students and Victoria is not well placed for the Universities. Oxford Road and Piccadilly being the best placed stations for students - Oxford Road the closest and Piccadilly for connections to the cheap bus link. Extending the bus link to Victoria will add to the journey time and could reduce the frequency if extra vehicles aren't obtained and even if they are the price would likely increase faster.

 

[IanXC]

Its hardly easy to find your way from one to the other either, not like Birmingham Moor Street to New Street!

 

[markydh]

Exactly. I cannot help feeling that that diverting the Newcastle TPE service into Victoria before the Ordsall Chord is constructed and opened is premature (and unnecessary) in the extreme. The two stations could hardly be described as close enough for connections between them to be remotely classified as easy.

 

[Bevan Price]

A major loser seems to be St. Helens Junction, which loses all services to Manchester Piccadilly and Airport, loses its fast service to Liverpool, is ignored by the Liverpool - Newcastle services, and is left with all shacks services to Manchester Victoria & Liverpool.
Bad news for a town with population over 100,000.

 

[Class185]

Sorry if I missed some news, but what is happening with Northern service to Manchester Airport via st Helens junction?

I must say, I'm glad another TPE service has been added direct to Liverpool, however I'm not sure about it going via Victoria.

 

[pemma]

Sorry if I missed some news, but what is happening with Northern service to Manchester Airport via st Helens junction?

I must say, I'm glad another TPE service has been added direct to Liverpool, however I'm not sure about it going via Victoria.

The Northern Lime Street to Bank Quay service is being sent to Victoria instead.

It's not exactly clear what the Northern services will be in the May 2014 timetable change. It is however clear that TPE are proposing to use paths currently used by Northern on the Chat Moss line, both for the peak time Scottish services and the extra Liverpool service all day.

The plan has been for a while to have the Airport to Liverpool service going via Warrington and for one of the stoppers to be speeded up. Given that the Oxford Road call has been removed on Liverpool-Scarborough the proposed new TPE timetable I would envisage that the Northern service running just ahead of the TPE service will have some of the lesser used stops removed and be extended to the Airport. The other Northern service would then probably be an all-stops service (maybe not including Deansgate or the Trafford Park stops off-peak.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A major loser seems to be St. Helens Junction, which loses all services to Manchester Piccadilly and Airport, loses its fast service to Liverpool, is ignored by the Liverpool - Newcastle services, and is left with all shacks services to Manchester Victoria & Liverpool.
Bad news for a town with population over 100,000.

St Helens Junction is not in the town of St Helens itself. The annual entry/exit figures are around 230,000 so it's really borderline for a calling point on an express service.

 

[WatcherZero]

Not directly related but NR has just signed a contract, within a year the 3 signal boxes Between Manchester and Wigan and the ones between Preston and Manchester will be transferred to Piccadilly control centre. Axle counters will be installed on the Atherton line and track circuits on the Bolton line, the points at Walkden will also be upgraded from mechanical to electrical. Renewal of the rail arches at Chorley has been postponed until the electrification works take place with temporary replacement until then.

 

[Bevan Price]

St Helens Junction is not in the town of St Helens itself. The annual entry/exit figures are around 230,000 so it's really borderline for a calling point on an express service.

I know - I live there. The lowish figures are largely due to incompetence by previous BR managements from the 1960's onwards, but there is potential for regrowth. First, they cut out the St. Helens Junction stops from what had been some of the most popular Liverpool - Newcastle sevices. Second, they imposed peak hour fares for journeys before 09:30 (the morning peak restriction had mainly been a London area imposition until the late 1960's, and did not apply in the Liverpool / Manchester areas at that time) . Passengers were faced with substantial fare increases for a worse service and many deserted the railway in consequence.

Although the service was improved in later years, it never fully recaptured the regular travellers, although numbers seemed to be slowly increasing until the next blow - all Trans Pennine services were rerouted via the CLC route. Since the Liverpool - Manchester Airport service was introduced via St. Helens Junction, there seems to have been some growth (the car park is often filled to owerflowing before 08:30), which seems likely to be reversed if the Airport service is lost.

I am not sure how accurate the entry/exit figures are, since many passengers will be using Merseytravel tickets / passes over parts of this line.

 

[pemma]

I am not sure how accurate the entry/exit figures are, since many passengers will be using Merseytravel tickets / passes over parts of this line.

LENNON data is generally underestimates due to ticket less travel but that affects all stations.

PTE tickets used to be generally ignored but that was changed recently and for St Helens Junction it saw an approximate increase of 33% on the previous year's figure.

 

[tbtc]

I think you're may be getting mixed up about where Romiley is or unsure of the current service pattern. Romiley can be served by trains going via Guide Bridge or trains going via Bredbury.

The hourly current frequency is:
* 2 x New Mills Central-Manchester via Bredbury
* 1 x Rose Hill Marple-Manchester via Guide Bridge
* 1 x Rose Hill Marple-Manchester via Bredbury

At the moment there are four trains an hour from Piccadilly to Romiley, two of which continue to Rose Hill Marple, two of which continue to New Mills Central (some of the New Mills Central services continuing to Sheffield).

Of the stations between Piccadilly and Romiley, the stopping pattern is as follows:

(stations via Guide Bridge)

• Fairfield – one train per hour
• Guide Bridge – one train per hour
• Hyde North – one train per hour
• Hyde Central – one train per hour
• Woodley – one train per hour

(stations via Belle Vue)

• Ashburys – one train per hour
• Belle Vue – one train per hour
• Ryder Brow – one train per hour
• Reddish North – two trains per hour
• Brinnington – two trains per hour
• Bredbury – two trains per hour

At the moment the service is a bit wonky, so that you can go from Belle Vue to Brinnington, but not from Brinnington to Belle Vue, you can go non-stop from Piccadilly to Romiley but there’s no “fast” return journey. However the point remains that if you ran two trains an hour via Guide Bridge (made easier when the bulk of TPE services are diverted away from Guide Bridge in to Victoria) and two trains an hour via Belle Vue then you could ensure that

• Every intermediate station retains its current number of trains an hour into Manchester
• Rose Hill Marple and New Mills Central retain their current two trains per hour
• The service was more evenly split (some stations on the line get a 20/40 split, rather than an even half hourly service, the services are so badly timed that one gets overtaken between Romiley and Piccadilly – its not a simple “turn up and go” service)
• Only a short section from Guide Bridge to Rose Hill Marple would need to be wired to free up some Pacers directly – which is more units than wiring a longer section like Doncaster – Goole – Hull would save
• You then have wires through Romiley to improve the business case for wiring the line through Belle Vue to New Mills Central as part of Hope Valley electrification in the longer term

Sending two services via Guide Bridge will reduce frequency via Bredbury unless you add in a new service, which can't be justified based on current loadings of off-peak trains arriving at or departing the two Marple stations.

At the moment there are only two trains an hour stopping at Bredbury (helpfully timed to leave Piccadilly at xx.00 and xx.45, rather than anything close to half hourly).

There's no need to run a new service as none of the stations on the line between Romiley and Piccadilly get more than two trains an hour (half only get one train an hour), so I'm not sure I understand your comment about needing an additional service.

I'm just planning on keeping the current four trains an hour to Romiley, but having them better organised (to avoid the badly timetabled gaps) and allowing half of them to convert to EMU for the sake of a short bit of electrification from Guide Bridge to Rose Hill Marple.

 

[pemma]

@tbtc I did say via Bredbury not calling at Bredbury. The calling points aren't the same on westbound and eastbound services.

I agree that the Marple-Manchester services are a mess but surly the most beneficial change to passengers would be to have a fully hourly Manchester-Sheffield stopper, with that service running express between Romiley and Manchester.

The Rose Hill Marple service is something TfGM are looking at converting to tram-train. I think you'd need to wait until that idea is confirmed or dismissed before deciding on possible electrification. Certainly, at present the 8 carriages per hour between the two Marple stations and Manchester in the off-peak looks a waste of capacity - it's usually only the services to/from Sheffield that have healthy loadings, so converting to smaller tram-trains over larger 3/4 car EMUs would make sense if you want to maintain the current frequency.

 

[tbtc]

@tbtc I did say via Bredbury not calling at Bredbury.

You were suggesting that diverting one of the Bredbury trains via Guide Bridge (as I was proposing) would mean a loss of services on the Bredbury section (so there would be a reduction in frequency on that line - unless a new service was added).

I was explaining that none of the stations on the Bredbury section got three trains stopping there an hour, so there would be no loss in service to any of those stations.

However the diversion of (most) TPE services away from Guide Bridge would allow Northern (or their successor) to run more services through Guide Bridge (without reducing the service to any stations on the Bredbury section of line).

 

[pemma]

You were suggesting that diverting one of the Bredbury trains via Guide Bridge (as I was proposing) would mean a loss of services on the Bredbury section (so there would be a reduction in frequency on that line - unless a new service was added).

I was explaining that none of the stations on the Bredbury section got three trains stopping there an hour, so there would be no loss in service to any of those stations.

I didn't realise that there was an 'express' service via Bredbury in both directions before posting earlier on.

However the diversion of (most) TPE services away from Guide Bridge would allow Northern (or their successor) to run more services through Guide Bridge (without reducing the service to any stations on the Bredbury section of line).

But with proposals to enhance Glossop services, introduce a Stockport-Guide Bridge-Victoria service and extend more local services to Stalybridge and possibly sending some express Sheffield services via Marple, those extra paths will quickly disappear again.