The North Transpennine Core: a quart in a pint pot?

[Iskra]

There do seem to be a few problems on this line. I've done Huddersfield-Leeds on TPE's fairly often in the last couple of weeks in the afternoon/evening. The main annoyance to me is that we seem to crawl from upper Batley where the foot-crossing is all the way into Leeds.

Personally, I don't understand TPE's approach to Selby, the Selby trains are by far the quietest TPE trains I see in use. I can understand it as a stop on the way to Hull, but not as a destination itself. It seems like a waste of units, especially when it was 2x185's last week.

I agree with the comments saying TPE should split and join their units at York/Preston (Preston for Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere trains) more often for the journey to Man/Liverpool to provide more capacity on the busiest parts of their network. The Southern operators seem to make far more effective use of splitting/joining. I also agree that TPE don't need to serve York-Newcastle and should instead put the released units onto York-Man/Liverpool services- I understand that would be problematic for the service levels at Chester-le-Street and Thirsk though.

The DFT need to decide whether TPE is an express or a local service, it all seems to be very confused. I still think TPE have done an ok job overall though.

 

[northwichcat]

Silly Season indeed.

At Hudderfield the interval between services now ranges from 6 to 19 minutes, so while there may be more capacity every hour, it does not correspond to an increased frequency.

Paths are precious, and the TPE service provision must not be at the expense of stopping services. The High Fare charged fro the section between Marsden and Greenfield through Standedge Tunnel artificially suppresses demand, and were the anomaly rectified, increased traffic would easily justify 2 stoppers per hour. (it is already busy with the Greater Manchester area)

THe RUS proposal to increase frequency was built around the existing 3-car Class 185 diesel fleet, but with electrification on the way, it makes far more sense to run 6-car trains through the core, with or without services joining and splitting at Manchester and Leeds. The TPE stations have the platforms already.

No. The CP4 plan was for TPE to get 4 x 10 car DMUs and to run a clockface Piccadilly-York service every 15 min with the 5th TPE service to Hull being off pattern.

When electrification was announced the idea of a Liverpool to Newcastle service via Victoria in under 3 hours became a key aspiration. The direct service was introduced in May alongside the existing North TPE services which just created a mess.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There do seem to be a few problems on this line. I've done Huddersfield-Leeds on TPE's fairly often in the last couple of weeks in the afternoon/evening. The main annoyance to me is that we seem to crawl from upper Batley where the foot-crossing is all the way into Leeds.

Personally, I don't understand TPE's approach to Selby, the Selby trains are by far the quietest TPE trains I see in use. I can understand it as a stop on the way to Hull, but not as a destination itself. It seems like a waste of units, especially when it was 2x185's last week.

I agree with the comments saying TPE should split and join their units at York/Preston (Preston for Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere trains) more often for the journey to Man/Liverpool to provide more capacity on the busiest parts of their network. The Southern operators seem to make far more effective use of splitting/joining. I also agree that TPE don't need to serve York-Newcastle and should instead put the released units onto York-Man/Liverpool services- I understand that would be problematic for the service levels at Chester-le-Street and Thirsk though.

The DFT need to decide whether TPE is an express or a local service, it all seems to be very confused. I still think TPE have done an ok job overall though.

TPE have to run a service between Picadilly and Hull but with the engineering works ongoing the Hull services can only go as far as Selby.

Network Rail are to wire Selby but Hull is not confirmed. As the idea is for the Piccadilly to Selby/Hull services to be semi fasts and the others to be express I wonder whether the diesel Calder Vale services will stop serving Selby when TPE introduce a new Selby service which could be the 1st North TPE electric service.

 

[deltic08]

You've tried to gloss over your omission in that York has a total of 4 direct Manchester services an hour already (as well as the hourly Piccadilly-Hull service) - there is no need for an extra Leeds-York path to run 6tph on North TPE. There's also no need for an extra Manchester-Huddersfield path given the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper will go, so it's just between Huddersfield and Selby that an extra path is required. If a path can't be found on between Huddersfield and Selby than sending services via Harrogate will be of no use - it will only slow down what are supposed to be Intercity style services.

What you have to remember about 6tph on North TPE - the idea is for Victoria to get North TPE services as well as Piccadilly, not for Piccadilly to lose them at the expense of Victoria gaining them. While Victoria will gain more services the majority of people changing trains will still need to use Piccadilly.

Middlesbrough has never seriously been considered as an alternative XC destination. I suggested it could work if Liverpool-Newcastle went to 2tph a couple of years back and people have been saying it will happen since. Unfortunately, I don't have any control the franchise specifications so can't make it happen! The franchise spec for the next EC franchise includes the option for some direct services to Middlesbrough but DfT and Network Rail have never said anything about Middlesbrough being included in XC.

How can posting be trying to gloss over an omission? Are you suggesting 4tph to York will be too many post 2018 electrification? Intermediate stations between Manchester and Leeds deserve more than 1tph.

I thought the whole point of the Ordsall Chord was to concentrate services on Victoria easing throat congestion at Piccadilly. Is 2tph from MIA via Piccadilly not enough? You appear to be contradicting yourself.

 

[northwichcat]

How can posting be glossing over an omission? Are you suggesting 4tph to York will be too many post 2018 electrification? Intermediate stations between Manchester and Leeds deserve more than 1tph. You appear to be contradicting yourself.

How am I contradicting myself? You're clearly getting my posts mixed up with someone else's. I never said 6tph was a problem - I was saying the originally proposed idea of 2tph between Manchester and York by 61653 HTAFC would have negative consequences as connections would become less good. I suggested Harrogate as a possible connection to/from TPE services and you came up with a unrealistic idea about Harrogate getting electrification, a new line and being served by TPE. If I'd know what was going to follow when I mentioned Harrogate, I'd have chosen another example.

So if you're not glossing over things explain why we need to go to great lengths to allow TPE to run via Harrogate considering there are currently 4tph between York and Manchester and if TPE goes to 6tph there will still be 4tph between York and Manchester, so there is no need for an extra path!

EDIT: So just before I hit reply you've changed your argument!

I thought the whole point of the Ordsall Chord was to concentrate services on Victoria easing throat congestion at Piccadilly. Is 2tph from Piccadilly not enough? You appear to be contradicting yourself.

So are you proposing an hourly Victoria-Huddersfield stopper remains instead of half-hourly Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts? Can a half-hourly Intercity Liverpool-Victoria-Newcastle work around an all-stops services?

I think you're confused about what the actual plans are and are trying to argue your idea is better but don't know what you're comparing it to!

 

[Hebden Bridger]

It is of course possible that the full planned frequency of services between Manchester and Leeds, including the assorted stoppers and semi fasts, will often run smoothly with minimal disruption... BUT:
The current infrastructure leaves very little flexibility to recover if things go wrong.
<snip>
In particular the pacers (along with overworked infrastructure) will still be the weak link that will cause things to go awry, I fear...

As I said its not only is it possible to run the planned services, but its also possible to squeeze a couple of more in, but anyway ........... yes sure in a perfect world with an infinite budget you could do all sorts of things to improve punctuality.

But is it necessary? Overall TPE's and Northern's Annual Punctuality (moving average at 89% and 91%) are actually better than most TOCs (link here), . Yes I have no doubt that frequent users of the line will moan and groan but is the actual performance of this line significantly worse than other similar lines around the country? I doubt it.

 

[edwin_m]

I suggested that when the Northallerton-Harrogate route is reinstated.

I don't think "when" is the right word to use in this contect. The possibility of this happening seems to me to be very remote.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I don't think "when" is the right word to use in this contect. The possibility of this happening seems to me to be very remote.

Has a Manchester to Newcastle service via Harrogate ever been proposed by any official body (local/central government or sponsored by government, Network Rail, TOC, User Group etc) ?

 

[deltic08]

Has a Manchester to Newcastle service via Harrogate ever been proposed by any official body (local/central government or sponsored by government, Network Rail, TOC, User Group etc) ?

Yes, Commons Transport Select Committee in September 2014. It is on their website as a way of providing public transport in a public transport poverty area north of Harrogate without additional train procurement costs. Just divert a service running via York to run via Harrogate on a reinstated route.

Ripon City Council is very supportive but North Yorkshire County Council prefers to spend megabucks on road feasibility studies such as £120,000 on a £46m four mile road bypassing Bedale and not £20,000 on a 25mile railway reinstatement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How am I contradicting myself? You're clearly getting my posts mixed up with someone else's. I never said 6tph was a problem - I was saying the originally proposed idea of 2tph between Manchester and York by 61653 HTAFC would have negative consequences as connections would become less good. I suggested Harrogate as a possible connection to/from TPE services and you came up with a unrealistic idea about Harrogate getting electrification, a new line and being served by TPE. If I'd know what was going to follow when I mentioned Harrogate, I'd have chosen another example.

So if you're not glossing over things explain why we need to go to great lengths to allow TPE to run via Harrogate considering there are currently 4tph between York and Manchester and if TPE goes to 6tph there will still be 4tph between York and Manchester, so there is no need for an extra path!

EDIT: So just before I hit reply you've changed your argument!



So are you proposing an hourly Victoria-Huddersfield stopper remains instead of half-hourly Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts? Can a half-hourly Intercity Liverpool-Victoria-Newcastle work around an all-stops services?

I think you're confused about what the actual plans are and are trying to argue your idea is better but don't know what you're comparing it to!

What I am saying is that intermediate stations on the Manchester-York route deserve 2tph with sufficient overtaking loops if necessary fitted inbetween 4tph TPE services not 6tph with occasional stops.

Who would run 6tph with occasional stops? If TPE, then this denies use of Northern Day Ranger tickets across the Pennines and travel between adjacent stations. Barking. What is planned doesn't concern me. What commuters and occasional users want does concern me.

 

[ac6000cw]

Yes, Commons Transport Select Committee in September 2014. It is on their website as a way of providing public transport in a public transport poverty area north of Harrogate without additional train procurement costs. Just divert a service running via York to run via Harrogate on a reinstated route.

Ripon City Council is very supportive but North Yorkshire County Council prefers to spend megabucks on road feasibility studies such as £120,000 on a £46m four mile road bypassing Bedale and not £20,000 on a 25mile railway reinstatement.

According to Google maps, there is a bus every 20 minutes from Ripon to Harrogate - doesn't sound like a 'public transport poverty area' to me (given that a TPE train service would probably be 1 tph and only stop at Harrogate, Ripon and Thirsk ?)

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Yes, Commons Transport Select Committee in September 2014. It is on their website as a way of providing public transport in a public transport poverty area north of Harrogate without additional train procurement costs. Just divert a service running via York to run via Harrogate on a reinstated route.

Ripon City Council is very supportive but North Yorkshire County Council prefers to spend megabucks on road feasibility studies such as £120,000 on a £46m four mile road bypassing Bedale and not £20,000 on a 25mile railway reinstatement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly where does the Transport Select Committee say this???

Google soon tells me that the so-called "Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group" were 1 of 127 groups submitting evidence to the Transport Committee's report on "Passenger transport in isolated communities". And the campaigners managed to get a report in the Yorkshire Post , which I had read before, because of this.

But I can't see any mention of support for a reinstated line in the report - indeed apart from support for Community Rail Partnerships, the report doesn't say much about rail at all.

The idea of reinstating a 25mile long railway to save on train procurement costs is errm ... interesting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to Google maps, there is a bus every 20 minutes from Ripon to Harrogate - doesn't sound like a 'public transport poverty area' to me (given that a TPE train service would probably be 1 tph and only stop at Harrogate, Ripon and Thirsk ?)

To be fair to The Transport Select Committee, the first recommendation of the report was that a definition of isolated areas was required. But they were talking about areas like The Isles Of Scilly and really rural areas, so I doubt they really were concerned about Yorkshire's Golden Triangle (and towns like Ripon).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm on a mobile so can't quote selective sections easily, but for the record tbtc, it wasn't me that proposed the idea of fewer, longer trains. My whole argument was that the fifth TPE service might have been better off waiting until the electrification is done. The extra 185s released by the 350s would then have been used to increase capacity in those services that need it most.
Reopening via Ripon won't really solve any problems with North TPE, though in its own right it deserves an investigation and feasibility study, etc. For one thing the reversal at Leeds would be an issue, albeit less of one than it was when loco hauled Transpennine services used that route.

 

[BantamMenace]

I'm on a mobile so can't quote selective sections easily, but for the record tbtc, it wasn't me that proposed the idea of fewer, longer trains. My whole argument was that the fifth TPE service might have been better off waiting until the electrification is done. The extra 185s released by the 350s would then have been used to increase capacity in those services that need it most.
Reopening via Ripon won't really solve any problems with North TPE, though in its own right it deserves an investigation and feasibility study, etc. For one thing the reversal at Leeds would be an issue, albeit less of one than it was when loco hauled Transpennine services used that route.

The reversal at Leeds would make a new Hull - Newcastle via Leeds and Harrogate the most practical service to serve the line should it be reopened. Alternatively an extension of a London to Leeds via Hambleton to Newcastle via Harrogate would be a handy service if it did KGX to Leeds non stop.

 

[tbtc]

Good idea for a thread. Whilst there have been some significant frequency improvements on this corridor since privatisation (compared to Sheffield - Manchester which has had two "fast" trains an hour for a long time), the infrastructure hasn't been improved at the same rate, which means we are banging up against capacity limits.

There are a few stations on the line that could be busy commuter stops, but there's no capacity to stop more trains there (and the trains which do stop are busy with longer distance passengers). Stations like Batley and Morley could be getting a million journeys a but the combined number of passengers (264k + 304k) is only just over half the number who use Horsforth (960k).

BUT, there's no scope to stop more than the current two/hour at Batley/ Morley (etc), so it's either an already busy Pacer (with passengers from Huddersfield/ Brighouse/ Dewsbury etc) or nothing at the moment.

Since there's no scope for a new line (until HS3), we are probably stuck with the current two track railway, with a couple of new loops being about the best we can hope for.

If we can keep freight away (all diverted via Wakefield Kirkgate?) then eight an hour from Mirfield to Leeds sounds achievable:

• Four fast Manchester - Leeds services (stopping at Huddersfield and maybe either Dewsbury or Stalybridge)
• Two semi fast Manchester- Leeds services (skip stopping west of Huddersfield plus Dewsbury and one other east of Huddersfield)
• Hourly slow Huddersfield - Leeds (all stops)
• Hourly slow Brighouse - Leeds (all stops)

(I'm not getting in to an argument about Manchester Airport/ Liverpool/ Newcastle/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull etc - the "pick somewhere on the east and somewhere on the west" random generator game that we seem to play on here!)

However, I don't think that we need to cram eight trains an hour on this line. The obsession with direct services and incremental tinkering with the timetable mean that we've got a lot of short services sharing these busy tracks. Four an hour from Manchester to Leeds is plenty - we just need to make sure that they all have say 300/400 seats - a 185 having under 200 seats in comparison.

Unfortunately, there are more good headlines to be made in "more services" than "longer services", which is why we now have an awkwardly scheduled "fifth" fast service an hour. Cutting it back to "just" four an hour (even at six coaches long) would get negative headlines.

(as for the idea of Hull to Newcastle via Harrogate, or choking the timetable for the sake of maintaining a direct service from Greenfield to Marsden for the sake of ale drinkers... no thanks!)

I'm on a mobile so can't quote selective sections easily, but for the record tbtc, it wasn't me that proposed the idea of fewer, longer trains. My whole argument was that the fifth TPE service might have been better off waiting until the electrification is done

I'd not contributed to the thread (until now), so think you've confused me with someone else(?)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You're quite right, it was jcollins... Not sure how that happened, but you have my sincere apologies!

 

[deltic08]

Exactly where does the Transport Select Committee say this???

Google soon tells me that the so-called "Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group" were 1 of 127 groups submitting evidence to the Transport Committee's report on "Passenger transport in isolated communities". And the campaigners managed to get a report in the Yorkshire Post , which I had read before, because of this.

But I can't see any mention of support for a reinstated line in the report - indeed apart from support for Community Rail Partnerships, the report doesn't say much about rail at all.

The idea of reinstating a 25mile long railway to save on train procurement costs is errm ... interesting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


To be fair to The Transport Select Committee, the first recommendation of the report was that a definition of isolated areas was required. But they were talking about areas like The Isles Of Scilly and really rural areas, so I doubt they really were concerned about Yorkshire's Golden Triangle (and towns like Ripon).

Firstly Ripon is a City and not a town and is NOT within the golden triangle. Out of 127 submissions, reinstating the railway line to Ripon was one of a handful published. Ripon is the hub for the Dales and a railhead would be very useful.

Yes there is a frequent bus service between Harrogate and Ripon but it is only bus pass holders that sustains this frequency. Before bus passes, off peak was just hourly. Try travelling north of Ripon. Only four a day outside term time between 0730 and 1730 and no integration as the nearest stop to Northallerton station is 15-20 minutes walk away.

 

[Welshman]

Reopening via Ripon won't really solve any problems with North TPE, though in its own right it deserves an investigation and feasibility study, etc. For one thing the reversal at Leeds would be an issue, albeit less of one than it was when loco hauled Transpennine services used that route.

As I remember, it wasn't an issue at all as they went from Leeds City to Harrogate via Wetherby, thus not needing to reverse.

 

[northwichcat]

What I am saying is that intermediate stations on the Manchester-York route deserve 2tph with sufficient overtaking loops if necessary fitted inbetween 4tph TPE services not 6tph with occasional stops.

Who would run 6tph with occasional stops? If TPE, then this denies use of Northern Day Ranger tickets across the Pennines and travel between adjacent stations. Barking. What is planned doesn't concern me. What commuters and occasional users want does concern me.

So considering the plan is:
* Half-hourly Airport-York via Victoria service calling at only Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds
* Half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle via Victoria service calling at only Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds
* Half-hourly Piccadilly-Selby/Hull semi-fast calling at Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury and two stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield so that each station has an hourly service.

Meaning the northbound departures from Victoria should be something like xx:00 (Newcastle), xx:15 (York), xx:30 (Newcastle), xx:45 (York)

and from Piccadilly something like:
xx:05 (York), xx:20 (Hull), xx:35 (York), xx:50 (Selby)

The preferred option is also for Blackpool-York to be extended to Scarborough and I don't think there is any preferred option for Middlesbrough at this stage.

What is wrong it in your opinion?

If you don't think it meets your demands have you responded to the consultations both Network Rail and DfT have done on North TPE?

Note any operator specific tickets will be reviewed by the next franchise holders anyway so may not remain anyway.

With the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield the frequency will remain the same but the bonus is they'll gain direct services to Leeds. There is also provision for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield all-stops alongside the semi-fasts post-electrification.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As I remember, it wasn't an issue at all as they went from Leeds City to Harrogate via Wetherby, thus not needing to reverse.

Of course, I'd forgotten about that line as it is before my time (as is via Ripon of course) but a reversal would be needed now, unless Wetherby was reopened too.

To be fair Wetherby probably has more of a case than Ripon which is essentially a village with a big church!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As I remember, it wasn't an issue at all as they went from Leeds City to Harrogate via Wetherby, thus not needing to reverse.

It is good to know that we of "a certain age" still have memories of lines such as this particular one that we can recall.

Linton Road station in Wetherby was closed some 50 years ago in 1964, when I was only 19 years of age and half way through my Mathematics degree course at Manchester University.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair Wetherby probably has more of a case than Ripon which is essentially a village with a big church!

Big church indeed........You are referring to the iconic Ripon Cathedral with has seen countless years of service to the community. Perhaps it will be good to ponder upon the question of how many cathedral cities are now without a railway station in their settlement.

 

[D6975]

Why is reversing at Leeds an issue?
Leeds has a plethora of west facing bay platforms and TPX services nearly all have a 3 or 4 minute stop at Leeds - sometimes more.

 

[edwin_m]

Despite a big expansion at the turn of the century, Leeds station is virtually full.

Transpennine services currently pass right through, stopping briefly at platforms 15 and 16 which are almost on the south side of the layout. It appears to be possible for a few more trains to do this in the enhanced TP service. To reverse towards Harrogate they would need to cross over the Bradford/Ilkley and Doncaster routes on the station approaches creating a lot more conflict - just the thing the Northern Hub is trying to avoid in Manchester. I think the western terminating services fully occupy the existing bay platforms and the only place more could be created is on the north side, demolishing the recently-built multi-storey car park.

 

[HowardGWR]

Despite a big expansion at the turn of the century, Leeds station is virtually full.

......... the only place more could be created is on the north side, demolishing the recently-built multi-storey car park.

Perhaps they could 'hollow it out'? I used to think that could have been done with the underground car park at the Victoria Centre in Nottingham.

 

[northwichcat]

Big church indeed........You are referring to the iconic Ripon Cathedral with has seen countless years of service to the community. Perhaps it will be good to ponder upon the question of how many cathedral cities are now without a railway station in their settlement.

Wells?

Peel?

Southwell?

Millport?

Technically Gibraltar. It has a cathedral belonging to the Church of England in the Diocese of Europe and the nearest station is San Roque, Spain. It's also a very unusual Cathedral - from the outside a Moorish looking building which you'd think belongs to an African church but inside it looks like a typical C of E Cathedral.

Although, a town having a Cathedral only usually makes it a Cathedral city if the Cathedral belongs to the Anglican church. Saying that the smallest place I can find with a non-Anglican cathedral is Clifton and Clifton does have a station.

Gibraltar would be the largest of those but the reason it doesn't have a rail line is obviously political.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps they could 'hollow it out'? I used to think that could have been done with the underground car park at the Victoria Centre in Nottingham.

Depends on the height between the decks and the structural consequences of taking the bottom one out (ie will the whole lot collapse...). However these things are virtually giant Meccano sets and it wouldn't be too difficult to take it away and build another one with space for tracks underneath. The station throat capacity issues are far less easy to resolve.

 

[deltic08]

So considering the plan is:
* Half-hourly Airport-York via Victoria service calling at only Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds
* Half-hourly Liverpool-Newcastle via Victoria service calling at only Huddersfield between Manchester and Leeds
* Half-hourly Piccadilly-Selby/Hull semi-fast calling at Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury and two stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield so that each station has an hourly service.

Meaning the northbound departures from Victoria should be something like xx:00 (Newcastle), xx:15 (York), xx:30 (Newcastle), xx:45 (York)

and from Piccadilly something like:
xx:05 (York), xx:20 (Hull), xx:35 (York), xx:50 (Selby)

The preferred option is also for Blackpool-York to be extended to Scarborough and I don't think there is any preferred option for Middlesbrough at this stage.

What is wrong it in your opinion?

If you don't think it meets your demands have you responded to the consultations both Network Rail and DfT have done on North TPE?

Note any operator specific tickets will be reviewed by the next franchise holders anyway so may not remain anyway.

With the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield the frequency will remain the same but the bonus is they'll gain direct services to Leeds. There is also provision for a Piccadilly-Huddersfield all-stops alongside the semi-fasts post-electrification.

Yes, I responded to the franchise stakeholder consultation but not in great detail. I just suggested no more than 4tph on TPE but portion worked for east of Leeds to increase paths and seats with 2tph all station services Manchester-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds Northern. I wrongly assumed all services were transferring to Victoria even those originating at Piccadilly would travel via Victoria.

All intermediate stations would have 2tph and would be able to travel to any other station between Manchester and York by changing at Stalybridge, Huddersfield or Leeds.

I also agreed with merging both franchises as there is no fares competition on overlapping routes, so why have two franchises.

Having now seen your last post, why not alternate between Victoria and Piccadilly?

Times at Stalybridge
XX55 Arrival of terminating train from Vic
XX00 Liverpool-Newcastle via Victoria.
XX03 Man Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper.
XX18 MIA-Picc-Vic-York/Hull semi fast.
XX25 Arrival of terminating train from Vic
XX30 Liverpool-Newcastle via Picc.
XX33 Picc-Vic-Huddersfield stopper.
XX48 MIA-Picc-York/Hull semi fast.

Only 2tph crossing Picc throat.

Is it possible for through trains from Guide Bridge and Ashton to arrive Stalybridge almost simultaneously since 2012 alterations? Are platforms signalled for reversible working? If so then if the stopper arrives first, it could leave following the non stop Newcastle fast service on a yellow 2-3 minutes afterwards to reach Huddersfield before the following semi fast which would be non-stop to Huddersfield.

Or something similar

 

[edwin_m]

Each path across the Piccadilly throat costs at least two main line paths out of Piccadilly as well as the performance risk. Northern Hub was all about avoiding this.

Also splitting the fast trains means that a prospective passenger from Manchester faces a very confusing choice about which station to head for when going to a particular destination. Imagine someone heading to Piccadilly, finding there is no Newcastle train for nearly an hour then heading for Victoria only to miss the next one there...

The pattern as described by jcollins has some logic to it. Passengers from Manchester to Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle should always head for Victoria - going to Piccadilly will only save them a few minutes if anything. Passengers for semi-fast stations and Hull need to go to Piccadilly.

 

[Welshman]

Wells?

Peel?

Southwell?

Millport?

Technically Gibraltar. It has a cathedral belonging to the Church of England in the Diocese of Europe and the nearest station is San Roque, Spain. It's also a very unusual Cathedral - from the outside a Moorish looking building which you'd think belongs to an African church but inside it looks like a typical C of E Cathedral.

Although, a town having a Cathedral only usually makes it a Cathedral city if the Cathedral belongs to the Anglican church. Saying that the smallest place I can find with a non-Anglican cathedral is Clifton and Clifton does have a station.

Gibraltar would be the largest of those but the reason it doesn't have a rail line is obviously political.

And if you come west of Offa's Dyke you have St Asaph, St David's and Brecon - true, not CofE cathedrals, rather Church in Wales Cathedrals, but cities with no rail connections nonetheless!

Anyway - back to the topic!

 

[snowball]

And if you come west of Offa's Dyke you have St Asaph, St David's and Brecon - true, not CofE cathedrals, rather Church in Wales Cathedrals, but cities with no rail connections nonetheless!

Even Brecon's website doesn't claim it's a city.

 

[Welshman]

Even Brecon's website doesn't claim it's a city.

You're right. My mistake.

 

[northwichcat]

And if you come west of Offa's Dyke you have St Asaph, St David's and Brecon - true, not CofE cathedrals, rather Church in Wales Cathedrals, but cities with no rail connections nonetheless!

Anyway - back to the topic!

That was due to Wales being hidden at the bottom on the Wikipedia page "List of cathedrals in England and Wales" while Scottish Cathedrals have their own page.