Halish Railway
Established Member
Shouldn't be too expensive or difficult. The issue might be the signalling and retimiming passing freight trains.Would need the restoration of the second platform at Castleford first though.
Shouldn't be too expensive or difficult. The issue might be the signalling and retimiming passing freight trains.Would need the restoration of the second platform at Castleford first though.
Why not Northern? The geography of the route means it's more or less 50/50 in terms of mileage in the North West and mileage in the Midlands and would serve either Crewe and Wilmslow or Macclesfield which are all considered to be in the North West. On the flip side; yes I know that Stoke, Stafford and Wolves are in the Midlands, so for that reason it's difficult to judge which pot such a service should go in.
It's irrelevant as far as this route goes, but there could be a few questions regarding this matter should the new Wales franchise not include running the shuttles on the Crewe to Shrewsbury and Crewe to Chester lines.
I would guess that a new platform (even though it is an old platform) would have to be accessible, meaning an expensive pair of lifts rather than just a footbridge.Shouldn't be too expensive or difficult. The issue might be the signalling and retimiming passing freight trains.
As I already mentioned an option looked at was extending the Manchester-Stoke stopper to Birmingham via Stone but that option wasn't taken up. At present if that service was to be introduced then for crew knowledge purposes it would make most sense under the XC franchise - apart from the hourly Stoke service no other Northern service goes beyond Cheadle Hulme on that route, while XC run 2tph between Manchester and Birmingham via Stoke. However, obviously XC don't have suitable EMUs for such a service in their fleet.
"Benefits
The requirements of SAIP are to create the capability to deliver more services, facilitating a recast of the timetable by the winter of 2017.
Two additional fast trains per hour (off-peak, each direction) between London Euston and the North West – these paths are to be created by moving the twice-hourly Birmingham/Liverpool services to the slow lines.
One extra fast train per hour (each direction) between Manchester and Birmingham – pathed for a Class 350.
One extra freight train path per hour (each direction) through Stafford."
This article from 2015 described the planned benefits of the Norton Bridge works.
Mention of a Class 350 suggests they were thinking London Midland would operate the additional Birmingham - Manchester service, and extending either of the stopping Northern services between Manchester and Crewe/Stoke could hardly produce a fast train. More likely would be diversion of one of the existing LM Birmingham - Liverpool every hour to Manchester instead, replaced between Crewe and Liverpool by an extension of the Euston - Crewe hourly service (but that would then leave Stafford - Stoke - Crewe needing a replacement service)
https://www.railengineer.uk/2015/07/30/easing-the-flow/
"Benefits
The requirements of SAIP are to create the capability to deliver more services, facilitating a recast of the timetable by the winter of 2017.
Two additional fast trains per hour (off-peak, each direction) between London Euston and the North West – these paths are to be created by moving the twice-hourly Birmingham/Liverpool services to the slow lines.
» One extra fast train per hour (each direction) between Manchester and Birmingham – pathed for a Class 350.
» One extra freight train path per hour (each direction) through Stafford."
I read it as the following services hourly:So are you suggesting that Liverpool to Birmingham go to hourly ...? That surely a backward step and wouldn't be a good move for heavily used stations such as Runcorn and Hartford.
I read it as the following services hourly:
1 x Birmingham to Liverpool (as current)
1 x Birmingham to Manchester (redirect current Brum to Liverpool service)
1 x Euston to Liverpool (extend current Euston to Crewe service)
Considering the LM plans (if I recall correctly) are to have a Crewe to Birmingham via Stoke stopping service, with the Crewe to Euston service running fast to Stafford on the main line, this doesn't sound super impossible.
In my post, if you replace "London Midland" with "West Midlands Trains" from 10th December, that'll work.Is LM going though ? Just I got an email from I think West Midland Trains, or something like that, and they said they are taking over the franchise. I actually asked if they planned to do some improvements at Acton Bridge ( expand parking ) and improve service, which they suggested they were including a Sunday service which is not available now.
The TPE/Northern services using platforms 13/14 will be:
TPE:
Airport to Newcastle (via Ordsall Chord)
Airport to Middlesbrough (via Ordsall Chord)
Airport to Scotland (via Bolton)
(All Liverpool services will go via Victoria and they'll be 2tph starting at Piccadilly going via Guide Bridge - one to Hull and one to Leeds only.)
Northern:
Crewe to Manchester Airport to Liverpool (via Chat Moss)
Manchester Airport to Liverpool (via Warrington Central)
Manchester Airport to Leeds (via Bradford)
Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere (via Wigan)
Alderley Edge to Wigan (via Bolton)
Macclesfield to Blackpool North
Manchester Airport to Blackpool North
I'm not sure if I've missed any. There's also a proposal for an Airport-Blackburn via Ordsall Chord service but that won't start in May 2018.
In my post, if you replace "London Midland" with "West Midlands Trains" from 10th December, that'll work.
As for Acton Bridge, "at least 4 additional station calls at Acton Bridge Monday to Saturday, and a new Sunday service from December 2018" according to http://maps.dft.gov.uk/west-midlands/ (change the dropdown to "Liverpool to Birmingham"). All the LM changes are here. No mention of Manchester anywhere, but I was re-parsing what ag51ruk said before, and that is more likely to be up in the air as that would change franchise boundaries.
This would seem to be three trains an hour each way over the Ordsall Chord so it will not realise its full benefit in May as Airport to Leeds trains will still cross the Piccadilly throat. Anyone got any thoughts on the extent to which the seemingly deferred proposal for platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly would enable better use to be made of the Ordsall Chord
I think Palmersears was asking about the platforms themselves.
As far as I know it is just a removal of clutter from the platforms. Removing the waiting rooms and generally trying to improve passanger flows, thus speeding up platform dwell times.
According to the Franchise Agreement, as you say Northern have to remove obstructions, possibly resite waiting rooms and improve passenger information so they wait in the correct place for their trains, but there was also another measure which was sensitive enough to be redacted from the document.
It appears from the Welsh Franchise thread that the North Wales to Airport service can continue as long as dwell times at Oxford Rd and Piccadilly are less than 1 minute. I'd guess this applies to Northern and TPE services too.
Yes Northern will still operate a regular service between Victoria and Stalybridge although these will no longer continue to Huddersfield.Will there be any Northern services running between Manchester and Stalybridge after the May timetable change? I need to take a bicycle into the city (often at short notice) for my job and if Stalybridge is only served by TPE, their supposedly incoming mandatory cycle reservation policy will cause me quite some inconvenience and expense (by having to travel to and from somewhere on the Glossop line instead as it's a Northern service).
So 3tph over the Chord, wasn't there supposed to be 4tph?
Will there be any Northern services running between Manchester and Stalybridge after the May timetable change? I need to take a bicycle into the city (often at short notice) for my job and if Stalybridge is only served by TPE, their supposedly incoming mandatory cycle reservation policy will cause me quite some inconvenience and expense (by having to travel to and from somewhere on the Glossop line instead as it's a Northern service).
From Leeds to Carlisle:
05:19
07:47
09:19
11:20
13:20
15:20
17:19
18:19
From Leeds to Lancaster:
07:19
08:19
10:20
12:20
14:20
17:50
19:18
Any particular reason given for it remaining via Barnsley? I am guessing capacity on the Westgate route but I note they've found a path to fit in the extra stopper from Knottingley to Leeds via Wakefield.
The report on potential new stations for West Yorkshire a couple of years back dismissed sites at Ardsley on the basis of no track capacity but suddenly the new Northern franchise promised the Nottingham and Knottingley additional trains.
I lost what I was looking at earlier as regards the Huddersfield Line hence this post. Why on earth is it the loops at Diggle (down) and Marsden (up) can’t be regularly used for overtaking? This would surly create a lot more capacity between Stalybridge and Huddersfield. Also, a loop or slow line at Batley and the creation of a platform three would work wonders.
Any thoughts people?
Becaue the train being overtaken in either direction has to sit in the loop for at least 7-8 minutes to give a headway in front and behind the overtaking train (it is one signal section onwards from each loop right through to the other end of Stanedge Tunnel.
And the effect is an even less efficient use of capacity on the route. Each train being overtaken effectively consumes *both* the path before *and* the potential path after the fast train that is overtaking it. Better to just keep the stopper going* in one 'large' path rather than split over two 'medium-large' paths.
*You've got super efficient layouts at both Stalybridge and Huddersfield to dive the stopper straight out of the way of a following fast.
As I already mentioned an option looked at was extending the Manchester-Stoke stopper to Birmingham via Stone but that option wasn't taken up. At present if that service was to be introduced then for crew knowledge purposes it would make most sense under the XC franchise - apart from the hourly Stoke service no other Northern service goes beyond Cheadle Hulme on that route, while XC run 2tph between Manchester and Birmingham via Stoke. However, obviously XC don't have suitable EMUs for such a service in their fleet.
Why are neither of the two new services along the Atherton line scheduled to stop at Swinton, Moorside and Walkden? Given that Wigan will be retaining a fast train to Manchester, why don't Northern focus on improving services for all stations along the Atherton line, rather than just Atherton and Daisy Hill? I think Moorside and Hag Fold will remain hourly!
In the same area, different line, why on earth is Clifton still on a one train per day frequency? Places like Ashley, Plumley, Glazebrook and Hope Valley line stations have or will have hourly or bi-hourly services yet Clifton remains at one train per day, despite being in a more urban area and having Pilkingtons/Chloride on the doorstep.
Probably not by Northern...Are Wedgwood and Barlaston ever going to be served again? The current situation is crazy!
So the simple answer with this would be to add a couple of stop signals inside Standegde Tunnel? Other than that; what happened to reopening the single track Standedge Tunnels?
*You've got super efficient layouts at both Stalybridge and Huddersfield to dive the stopper straight out of the way of a following fast.
Are Wedgwood and Barlaston ever going to be served again? The current situation is crazy!