Revised Northern Hub plans proposed by DfT today

[swt_passenger]

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:

NR must be a right bunch of amateurs - fancy not realising there's no room eh.

I wonder how they'll ever manage to thread a two track viaduct through Borough Market?

 

[pemma]

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.

I'm questioning your thinking of more than 2 4 carriage class 333 trains operating during a 1 hour period off-peak services.

I've actually done a counter peak flow on that route going from an office in Headingley around 5.30pm on a Friday, so I have seen how busy the peak services are but you were referring to off-peak services.

The Manchester Oxford Road to Liverpool stoppers are practically empty at off-peak times but heaving at peak times. It doesn't mean because of the heaving peak services they need more and longer trains at off-peak times.

 

[Waverley125]

Leeds-Harrogate is one of the busiest routes into Leeds, and the A61 is one of the busiest roads into Leeds of a morning.

During the peaks 4tph is needed (it's currently 4tph between 5pm and 6pm) to get the crowds out. In the off-peak, there's demand for trains out to Horsforth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
oh, and yes, I'd re-opening Low Moor--Thornhill for Bradfor-Wakefield traffic, as part of 'Bradford Crossrail'. So there's be 2tph to Wakefield (1 each to Skipton & Ilkley) and 2tph to Huddersfield via Halifax.

 

[IanXC]

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.

We already have a small fleet (16) of 333s and a small fleet (8) of 321/322s in Yorkshire.

Without knowing the numbers of additional units required in Yorkshire, I would say the first thing to do is move the 5 Heathrow Connect 360s to Greater Anglia and then 5 321s to Northern, so as to keep to types already in use. Further units than that are probably tied up with the main TP North fleet order in my view.

Theres also the question of where how the franchise map is divided up. If East Coast becomes a multipurpose franchise, and if the Northern/TPE franchise is devolved to the PTEs (looks like West Yorks, South Yorks, Merseyside and TfGM) there may be pressure for the Newcastle TPE services to not be part of the devolved franchise. In this case they could go to CrossCountry, which coupled with the Manchester-Bournemouth and Manchester-Scotland services could make a sensible hub for electric XC services from Manchester.

That of course changes the stock required, perhaps Manchester Airport-York could be operated by 'local/commuter' stock and Liverpool-Newcastle by 'intercity' stock?

 

[WatcherZero]

The end carriage door positions wouldnt be suitable for Liverpool-Manchester.

 

[IanXC]

The end carriage door positions wouldnt be suitable for Liverpool-Manchester.

Indeed. Typo on my part, meant to say Liverpool-Newcastle.

 

[tbtc]

perhaps Manchester Airport-York could be operated by 'local/commuter' stock and Liverpool-Newcastle by 'intercity' stock?

There's no pleasing everyone when it comes to stock type. People complain about 185s being "commuter" stock on long distance routes, but really how many people are travelling between Manchester and Newcastle compared to those travelling between Huddersfield and Leeds? Tricky to strike a balance - many routes in northern England function as both short distance and long distance services (due to the lack of alternatives).

 

[pemma]

There's no pleasing everyone when it comes to stock type. People complain about 185s being "commuter" stock on long distance routes, but really how many people are travelling between Manchester and Newcastle compared to those travelling between Huddersfield and Leeds? Tricky to strike a balance - many routes in northern England function as both short distance and long distance services (due to the lack of alternatives).

The proposed Liverpool-Newcastle is an express Intercity service. There won't be calls at stations like Dewsbury, Stalybridge and Newton-le-Willows and the Huddersfield-Leeds commuter traffic will be divided across more trains (6 fast trains per hour instead of 4 per hour) so they'll be less of it per service.

Liverpool-Newcastle will probably be less of a commuter train than the northern part of Glasgow-London and Edinburgh-Birmingham services.

While people doing Liverpool-Newcastle will spend longer on the train than people doing Liverpool-London.

 

[tbtc]

The proposed Liverpool-Newcastle is an express Intercity service. There won't be calls at stations like Dewsbury, Stalybridge and Newton-le-Willows and the Huddersfield-Leeds commuter traffic will be divided across more trains (6 fast trains per hour instead of 4 per hour) so they'll be less of it per service.

Liverpool-Newcastle will probably be less of a commuter train than the northern part of Glasgow-London and Edinburgh-Birmingham services.

While people doing Liverpool-Newcastle will spend longer on the train than people doing Liverpool-London.

This is just the latest suggestion for the service pattern though - these things keep changing.

And, yes, someone doing Liverpool to Newcastle will spend longer on the train than someone doing London to Liverpool, but I'd imagine that there will be a lot more people on the London to Liverpool service doing the "end to end" journey than there will be people sitting on the train all the way from Liverpool to Newcastle.

London to Liverpool generally has only two intermediate stops at much smaller stations (Stafford and Runcorn) so there's a much more significant "end to end" market than there is between Liverpool and Newcastle.

You might as well say that people going from Liverpool to Norwich are going to be on the train for longer than those going from Manchester to London.

 

[pemma]

This is just the latest suggestion for the service pattern though - these things keep changing.

As one of the advertised benefits of Chat Moss and TPE electrification and line speed improvements is you will be able to do Liverpool-Newcastle in under 3 hours, I can't see the standard stopping pattern changing. Except maybe if they have 2 x Liverpool-Newcastle services per hour and add in extra stops to one of them.

And, yes, someone doing Liverpool to Newcastle will spend longer on the train than someone doing London to Liverpool, but I'd imagine that there will be a lot more people on the London to Liverpool service doing the "end to end" journey than there will be people sitting on the train all the way from Liverpool to Newcastle.

London to Liverpool generally has only two intermediate stops at much smaller stations (Stafford and Runcorn) so there's a much more significant "end to end" market than there is between Liverpool and Newcastle.

Virgin are taking an increasing amount of local traffic. Having many spare seats on off-peak services and offering cheaper Virgin only tickets for local journeys and removing most pick-up and set-down restrictions has help Virgin obtain more local traffic.

You might as well say that people going from Liverpool to Norwich are going to be on the train for longer than those going from Manchester to London.

158s used on Liverpool-Norwich have the same type of seating and similar door layout to the FGW HSTs.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

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.

Then perhaps you need to refresh your local geography, knowledge of civil engineering, railway alignment design, station design and topographical survey?

It's a good job you are only in the business of imagining, not designing ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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:

Ahem. 1999 for some of us, though that was for Railtrack / sSRA.

It all fits; trust those with measured data, rather than those with ill-informed guesses.

 

[HSTEd]

It may fit, but its going to be interesting what it does to the road alignment in the vicinity of the current 13 and 14.
I assume they are just going to build a wider bridge with minimal realignments on the ground?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

It may fit, but its going to be interesting what it does to the road alignment in the vicinity of the current 13 and 14.
I assume they are just going to build a wider bridge with minimal realignments on the ground?

Fairfield Street becomes a covered way, some closures / re-routings of connecting streets where there is a clash with piers / columns.

 

[snail]

Ahem. 1999 for some of us, though that was for Railtrack / sSRA.

My apologies. I know these things take time, didn't realise it was mooted that long ago!

 

[tbtc]

Will the current 13/14 both be east/south bound with the two new platforms for all north/west bound services?

 

[transmanche]

As an aside; in the current set-up, can two trains be accommodated simultaneously on platform 13 & 13b or 14 & 14b at Manchester Piccadilly?

I occasionally catch the 19:50 ATW service to Chester, which is preceded by the 19:46 TPE service to Blackpool. The slightest delay to the TPE service means the ATW service can't get away on time. So I've often wondered why the ATW service can't pull into 14b and start boarding, once the TPE service has arrived. And I'm sure there are lots of other similar examples throughout the day, which would be able to make more efficient use of the available platform space.

 

[kjhskj75]

As an aside; in the current set-up, can two trains be accommodated simultaneously on platform 13 & 13b or 14 & 14b at Manchester Piccadilly?

Yes, provided they are small enough.

The problem is that passengers all go to the west end of the platform to catch westbound trains, because that is where they are expected. Presumably they don't want hordes of confused passengers running from one end to the other.

 

[Welshman]

Yes, provided they are small enough.

The problem is that passengers all go to the west end of the platform to catch westbound trains, because that is where they are expected. Presumably they don't want hordes of confused passengers running from one end to the other.

Easpecially if the x46 TPE has then pulled away, and the driver of the x50 ATW moves forward to the west end, and everyone is then rushing back again!

Given the narrow island platform, this is something the Network Rail can do without every hour of the day. In fact, am I right in thinking that nothing westbound is advertised as departing from 14b? - they would prefer the train to leave a few minutes late from 14a rather than causing a potential scrum on the platform?

In my experience, the x50 Llandudno trains often leave a few minutes down, but are right time again from Chester.

 

[transmanche]

Easpecially if the x46 TPE has then pulled away, and the driver of the x50 ATW moves forward to the west end, and everyone is then rushing back again!

Why on earth would a driver of a train booked to call at platform 14b just randomly draw forward to platform 14?

 

[HSTEd]

Why on earth would a driver of a train booked to call at platform 14b just randomly draw forward to platform 14?

To clear Platform 14b to prevent a single disruption somewhere from blocking the station throat up.

 

[transmanche]

Why on earth would a driver of a train booked to call at platform 14b just randomly draw forward to platform 14?

To clear Platform 14b to prevent a single disruption somewhere from blocking the station throat up.

Do drivers normally do this sort of thing on their own volition?

It seems pointless having a platform 14b if it's never used. And it seems a perfect way to make more efficient use of limited platform space by having a train on both platform 14 & 14b at busy times. It's not as if this sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere.

 

[kjhskj75]

Do drivers normally do this sort of thing on their own volition?

It seems pointless having a platform 14b if it's never used. And it seems a perfect way to make more efficient use of limited platform space by having a train on both platform 14 & 14b at busy times. It's not as if this sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere.

Sometimes the drivers will dump their alighting passengers at the first half-platform if the 2nd is blocked, and then move forward.

 

[mark1987]

I have used 14b when something was stuck in 13a, it is more of a platform to be used if something is blocking any part of 13

 

[swt_passenger]

Will the current 13/14 both be east/south bound with the two new platforms for all north/west bound services?

It's the only logical method of using the new platforms, based on how it's described in the Hub report:

On the Castlefield corridor provision of two additional
through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly immediately
to the south of the existing platforms 13 and 14, hence
known as 15 and 16, allows trains to arrive in one
platform while another train is departing in the same
direction from another. This intervention with minor
works at Manchester Oxford Road to operate in the
same manner increases the effective capacity to allow
trains to be planned to run three minutes...

Any other method of operation to what you suggest would introduce conflicting crossing moves.

 

[snail]

Do drivers normally do this sort of thing on their own volition?

It seems pointless having a platform 14b if it's never used. And it seems a perfect way to make more efficient use of limited platform space by having a train on both platform 14 & 14b at busy times. It's not as if this sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere.

That would only work if they could leave together, otherwise you just cause confusion by having the 14b train block the entire platform until it has pulled away then have the next train miss out that part of the platform to reach 14a, etc. In the long run it would save no time.

It would only work if there were long dwell times and a decent gap between services, and even then would be very sensitive to the slightest delay (what happens if a 14a train arrives late?). What you say sounds logical but try modelling it and the problems quickly show up. Think of what happens at a busy petrol station with cars queuing for two pumps, but instead of one driver leaving and entering the car you have dozens of people doing that at once.

 

[PR1Berske]

The current behaviour of most passengers on 13/14 is as "in built" as any where convention has been hard wired into them. To leave platform 14, passengers are more likely to congregate at the bottom of the stairs at the far north side than make their way further south/nearer the vending machines, because convention is trains will stop at that point.

I'm sure many here know that at Preston, passengers clump at the north side of Platform 1 because convention is trains to Blackpool stop further up.

If there's likely to be a change to 13/14 or if 15/16 ever get built (wherever they get built :roll passengers will have to be "re-trained" to treat them as platforms along which trains can stop anywhere.

 

[tbtc]

It's the only logical method of using the new platforms, based on how it's described in the Hub report:



Any other method of operation to what you suggest would introduce conflicting crossing moves.

Cheers - bitter experience has taught me never to assume anything will be rational! :-/

 

[YorkshireBear]

So are p15/16 going to be to the side of 13/14 or is it basically going to be on the same line just behind? Which option is going orward in northern hub?

 

[WatcherZero]

So are p15/16 going to be to the side of 13/14 or is it basically going to be on the same line just behind? Which option is going orward in northern hub?

To the side of 13/14, a widening of the viaduct built above the road but only for the platforms, no extra running lines between Pic and Oxford Road.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, according to one of the hub reports on NR's site, P13/14 will also be modified as part of the work.