Cliveblackpool
Member
Will the hourly Blackpool North to Liverpool Lime St via WGN service still run?
Thanks
Thanks
So is poor Barrow being dropped from tpe as predicted by a few people?
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.
So is poor Barrow being dropped from tpe as predicted by a few people?
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
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.
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.
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
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.somewhere else can have some 5 or 6 car 379s or 380s.
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.I said 'refurbished' before 333s. Would they not be suitable for TPE if they were refurbished more like the Heathrow Express 332s?
Where did you obtain this information ?
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.
So if the 333s are replaced on their current routes with larger trains where would you put the 333s?
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'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.
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...
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...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...
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!!
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.
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?
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?
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.
I think you had better tell Network Rail quick!Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
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.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.
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.
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.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.