• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Revised Northern Hub plans proposed by DfT today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
So is poor Barrow being dropped from tpe as predicted by a few people?

Barrow will be reduced to a token through service when hourly Scottish services start if the ORR approve TPE's application. The token service may disappear altogether when the new franchise is let.

Will the hourly Blackpool North to Liverpool Lime St via WGN service still run?
Thanks

No reason for it not to. Will likely be operated by 4 car 319s instead of Pacers and Sprinters.
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,042
Location
Yorkshire
No reason for it not to. Will likely be operated by 4 car 319s instead of Pacers and Sprinters.

Do we expect the 319s to keep their trailers (unlike virtually every other London area train that moved uuup north)?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Yes, the loss of trailers on Merseyrail was more an operational issue with coupling lengths vs platform lengths.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Further to that isn't there an issue with their being some equipment that's vital to the unit being located on the trailers?
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
So is poor Barrow being dropped from tpe as predicted by a few people?

There is a petition about this floating about somewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well half the extra traffic would be going through Picc 15/16 wouldn't it - which is a key feature of the plans?

But 15/16 is essentially mothballed, is it not? Ordsall is the only project in town, priority wise, and that's before we get into how 2 extra lines can be fitted away from the Star & Garter and squeezed around the curved hotel
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But 15/16 is essentially mothballed, is it not? Ordsall is the only project in town, priority wise, and that's before we get into how 2 extra lines can be fitted away from the Star & Garter and squeezed around the curved hotel

Where did you obtain this information ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Barrow will be reduced to a token through service when hourly Scottish services start if the ORR approve TPE's application. The token service may disappear altogether when the new franchise is let.

What future service patterns are envisaged from Barrow-in-Furness to Lancaster to replace existing ones ?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I questioned the thinking behind places like Huyton losing a Warrington Bank Quay service (and possible WCML connections) and was told that the trains are practically empty arriving at and leaving Warrington.

They are indeed. It's currently a very slow service compared to the CLC option.
I would hope that a limited stop Crewe-Warrington-Liverpool service might make better sense, calling at St Helens Jn and Wavertree.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
But 15/16 is essentially mothballed, is it not?

Northern Hub and Manchester
 Liverpool – Manchester track capacity (Huyton – Northern Hub),
 Manchester Airport fourth platform (Northern Hub ,
Castlefield corridor additional capacity and additional through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly (Northern Hub),
 Rochdale turnback (Northern Hub), and
 Depot and stabling enhancement for extra trains

As of Monday's announcement...
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
somewhere else can have some 5 or 6 car 379s or 380s.
3-car EMUs (Say 380s) would be better to maximise flexibility and capacity on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines: Six carriages is the maximum length that many of the present platforms can support, and there are still plenty of off-peak trains where passenger demand falls well short of filling a 4-car 333.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I said 'refurbished' before 333s. Would they not be suitable for TPE if they were refurbished more like the Heathrow Express 332s?
The problem with the 333s is that they are a very small fleet, so as you say would only be sufficient to work the Manchester Airport services. I would rather one standard fleet of EMUs, specified for regional services like TPE, was procured to operate all electrified Transpennine North services, and to replace the 350/4s on Manchester to Scotland.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Why is it generally assumed that no platform lengthening will be done as part of capacity increases in the NW?

Genuine question, by the way.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Ive no idea, NR said in the last RUS that they would lengthen platforms on the Bolton line to 8 car and other non-electrified lines to 6 car lengths. Platforms on the Southport and Kirkby lines have just been lengthened.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
Where did you obtain this information ?

Just knowing local geography. I can't imagine how the platforms and track can be installed with the lack of space between Platform 14 and the numerous buildings, including Mayfield remember.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Some North West platforms could take 6 car but as nothing longer than 4 car serves them the ends have been neglected and the whole platform is not currently usable. The Marple line contains some examples of this.

The question about platform lengthening is will all stations on the line get lengthened platforms or will some of the smaller ones miss out and then find their peak time service is reduced because there is a lack of shorter trains at peak times which can call there?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The problem with the 333s is that they are a very small fleet, so as you say would only be sufficient to work the Manchester Airport services. I would rather one standard fleet of EMUs, specified for regional services like TPE, was procured to operate all electrified Transpennine North services, and to replace the 350/4s on Manchester to Scotland.

There still is the question of where 333s would go if they are replaced on the Leeds locals. There aren't even enough for the Valley Lines so one area is going to have to have 333s and another type of EMU.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
So if the 333s are replaced on their current routes with larger trains where would you put the 333s?

I'd put the 333s on shortish routes suited to 3+2 commuter EMUs that aren't expected to work in multiple, like the Valley Lines or maybe replacing some "Lancashire" routes operated by three coach 323s (depending on platform lengths). Or, here's an idea, sixteen 333s move to the Glasgow "Southside" to replace the sixteen (three coach) 314s which are quite elderly (though could maybe be cascaded to the Valley Lines since there may not be sufficient 315s from GA spare post-Crossrail, and 314/315s have a lot more in common).

The small class would be difficult to allocate to a TOC though (too many for just a half hourly Manchester Airport - York service, but not really enough to use on many other routes too).

Why is it generally assumed that no platform lengthening will be done as part of capacity increases in the NW?

Genuine question, by the way.

I don't know, but it may be because a lot of stations have longer platforms than the current Pacers/Sprinters, so could accomodate an eighty metre train without needing more work done (without getting into another argument about Oxford Road).
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I'd put the 333s on shortish routes suited to 3+2 commuter EMUs that aren't expected to work in multiple, like the Valley Lines or maybe replacing some "Lancashire" routes operated by three coach 323s (depending on platform lengths).

Lancashire routes operated by 323s? The 323s only go east in to Derbyshire and south in to Cheshire and Staffordshire.

The Stoke route could be 333 operated but then the option of that service going to LM and being extended to Birmingham via Stone hasn't been ruled out.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Lancashire routes operated by 323s? The 323s only go east in to Derbyshire and south in to Cheshire and Staffordshire.

The Stoke route could be 333 operated but then the option of that service going to LM and being extended to Birmingham via Stone hasn't been ruled out.

Hence my use of inverted commas because if I'd said "Manchester routes operated by three coach 323s" then I'd have been picked up on that too...
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Hence my use of inverted commas because if I'd said "Manchester routes operated by three coach 323s" then I'd have been picked up on that too...

The Northern 323s all run services out of Manchester though. Most of the stations the Northern 323s serve are in the traditional Cheshire county opposed to the traditional Lancashire county. Using Lancashire in that context made me think you were implying some of the 323s would finish up on newly electrified lines.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Just knowing local geography. I can't imagine how the platforms and track can be installed with the lack of space between Platform 14 and the numerous buildings, including Mayfield remember.

So what you're basically suggesting is that for the last three or four years, NR have been seriously proposing two new through platforms for Piccadilly that just cannot be done?

Isn't there a bit of a flaw in that proposition?
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
Just knowing local geography. I can't imagine how the platforms and track can be installed with the lack of space between Platform 14 and the numerous buildings, including Mayfield remember.
With two extra platforms could 13/14 be trimmed to make it all fit? Four 8-car platforms would be shorter than the current ones I think. The section past the MacDonald hotel is staying at 2 tracks, so that's not an issue, and the Mayfield building is some way from Fairfield St. This may be a good opportunity to 'lose' it...
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
here's an idea. Let's take those Neville Hill-based 333s and.....


wire the Harrogate line. Keep them at NH, kill off a load of pacers, free up some 15Xs to get cascaded elsewhere (153 & 155 combos for all Leeds-Morecambe services for a start).

Keep them in bluddy Yorkshire!!
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
With two extra platforms could 13/14 be trimmed to make it all fit? Four 8-car platforms would be shorter than the current ones I think. The section past the MacDonald hotel is staying at 2 tracks, so that's not an issue, and the Mayfield building is some way from Fairfield St. This may be a good opportunity to 'lose' it...

Some previously posted that after checking platforms 13 and 14 at Piccadilly would be capable of holding 11 car Pendolinos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
wire the Harrogate line. Keep them at NH, kill off a load of pacers, free up some 15Xs to get cascaded elsewhere (153 & 155 combos for all Leeds-Morecambe services for a start).

Wiring one line with a half-hourly frequency won't kill off a 'load' of Pacers and leave 15xs available for cascade.

Keep them in bluddy Yorkshire!!

You don't need to wire a new line to keep them in Yorkshire - Huddersfield to Leeds via Dewsbury and replacing 32xs on Leeds-Doncaster?

The problem is if they stay you'll probably finish up with a small fleet of 333s and a small fleet of something else, instead of a decent size fleet of one class of EMU, which reduces maintenance costs and costs related to crew training and clearance.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
Leeds-Harrogate York needs to be at least 2tph off-peak and 3tph, if not 4tph peak, while Leeds-Horsforth could use 2tph as well.

With the proposed turnback at Horsforth we could run

2tph Leeds-York (all stops)
2tph Leeds-Horsforth (all stops)

in the off peaks,. In the peaks, the Horsforth stoppers could be extended, calling at all stops to Harrogate, while the York trains could drop calls at Weeton & Pannal, giving a faster service to Harrogate, Starbeck, Knaresborough & stations to York.

Given the crowding on these services (regularly not boardable at Leeds), a 4-car EMU should be enough to cope with capacity.

At present timetabling, Leeds-Horsforth is 12 minutes. Give an 8-minute turnaround, and we'll say that For a half-hourly service you'll need 2 units solely for that shuttle. Leeds-York is 1hr15 minutes, so there's 15 minutes at York to turnaroud, which is about ok. So you'll need another 5 units to run that service, and that's off-peak.

So that's 7 of the 16 units used, off-peak.

In the peaks the Horsforth stoppers are going to Harrogate, taking 34 minutes. Assuming 11 minutes to turn around, you need 3 units to run that service off-peak. Let's also assume 1 spare unit at Neville Hill, and 1 out of service at any one time for maintenance. That's 10 of the 16 333s just giving the Harrogate line a reasonable service. Never mind if you wanted more York-Harrogate trains, or were looking at re-opening Harrogate-Ripon.

Given the lack of terminating space at Leeds, the best way of utilising the new Leeds-Huddersfield & Leeds-York stoppers would be combinining them into a new York-Huddersfield service. Total end to-end journey time is 75 minutes. So again, you'll need 7 units on this service, plus spares & maintenance.

Also, the 32Xs are perfectly good for now, but we're going to need more EMUs up north for Leeds-Sheffield via Moorthorpe when that gets wired in CP6.

Personally, I'd be happy to shift the 333s off the A&W, if we were getting 380s. That, I think, is unlikely, so I'd much rather keep our 333s.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Leeds-Harrogate York needs to be at least 2tph off-peak and 3tph, if not 4tph peak, while Leeds-Horsforth could use 2tph as well.

I've been on 2 car DMUs on the southern section of that line and there's been plenty of seats spare, so more than 2 x 4 car trains off-peak sounds very excessive to me.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
You don't need to wire a new line to keep them in Yorkshire - Huddersfield to Leeds via Dewsbury and replacing 32xs on Leeds-Doncaster?

Given that SYPTE already pay South Yorkshire taxpayers' money to "secure" the fourth coach of the 333s (which spend hardly any time in South Yorkshire), that may be more appropriate.

But realistically that doesn't need anything like sixteen EMUs and neither does the Harrogate line. The Calder Valley line, on the other hand, were it to be getting wired...
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
So what you're basically suggesting is that for the last three or four years, NR have been seriously proposing two new through platforms for Piccadilly that just cannot be done?

Isn't there a bit of a flaw in that proposition?


Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
 

Waverley125

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Leeds, West Yorkshire
I've been on 2 car DMUs on the southern section of that line and there's been plenty of seats spare, so more than 2 x 4 car trains off-peak sounds very excessive to me.

yeah, the old 'I once went on a train and it wasn't busy, therefore no trains are busy'.

I've been on more sardine-tinned trains on the Harrogate line than anywhere else. Try getting on one of the trains out of Leeds between 1629 and 1929, and you'll see how busy it is.

Also it serves 2 very distinct markets, Leeds urban trains through the Northwest of the city, and the commuter market into Leeds from the countryside. Bear in mind that putting shiny new electric trains in the place of battered old worn out pacers on the route from one of Yorkshire's most affluent towns into two of its biggest cities will shift demand away from car use. EMU acceleration will also take some big bites out of time over a fairly hilly line.

But agreed, the Caldervale also needs wiring. Now add in Bradford Crossrail and the re-opening of Low Moor-Thornhill, and you've got a project.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
I think you had better tell Network Rail quick!

They have only been working on this since 2007, do you really not think someone would have spotted that by now. :roll:

---Edit---

Didn't have the study doc when I posted earlier. This is the section that refers to the new platforms:
Northern Hub Study said:
the greatest disruption to adjacent land users is through the construction of the Ardwick Flyover and platforms 15 & 16 at Manchester Piccadilly. Both variants of the Piccadilly platforms scheme have been developed in discussion with the local authority and developer to establish synergy with the proposed redevelopment of the land to the south.
The flyover is Option 1, this was dropped in favour of Option 2. The document goes on to state that platforms 13/14 will be remodelled as part of the work.
 
Last edited:

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
I've been on more sardine-tinned trains on the Harrogate line than anywhere else. Try getting on one of the trains out of Leeds between 1629 and 1929, and you'll see how busy it is.

You'll find that all trains out of Leeds at that time of the day are full - but that doesn't necessarily mean that Harrogate should have a more frequent service. Even the Leeds - Knaresborough services are not very full during the off peak, and past Knaresborough towards York is never packed, apart from a couple of services in the morning and evening.
 

burty76

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
64
yeah, the old 'I once went on a train and it wasn't busy, therefore no trains are busy'.

I've been on more sardine-tinned trains on the Harrogate line than anywhere else. Try getting on one of the trains out of Leeds between 1629 and 1929, and you'll see how busy it is.

Also it serves 2 very distinct markets, Leeds urban trains through the Northwest of the city, and the commuter market into Leeds from the countryside. Bear in mind that putting shiny new electric trains in the place of battered old worn out pacers on the route from one of Yorkshire's most affluent towns into two of its biggest cities will shift demand away from car use. EMU acceleration will also take some big bites out of time over a fairly hilly line.

But agreed, the Caldervale also needs wiring. Now add in Bradford Crossrail and the re-opening of Low Moor-Thornhill, and you've got a project.
What would be the point of opening Low Moor to Thornhill? It would be useful for the railway to be back in Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike, but Wakefield to Bradford wont generate enough traffic to be worth it.

Were it to be the "New Line" through the same communities linking Huddersfield and Leeds via Birstall, the potential would be huge. No chance of that no though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top