Theresa Villiers says Northern Hub to only go ahead in part

Status
Not open for further replies.

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Nothing like as many as the doubled up Manchester Airport - Preston/Lancaster services
Which lost a 4 car Voyager every 2 hours and TPE were expected to plug that gap using 185s.

It's be like making Manchester-Hull 2 hourly and then commenting on there being more doubled up services.



A three coach 144 (like under half of the 144s are) only has (roughly) the same capacity as a two coach Sprinter, due to the short Pacer coaches.

There are plenty doubled up Pacers "west" side, but very few on the "east" side.
And the west side has only 142s which is inferior to a combination of 144s and 142s.

I said about inferior rolling stock on the west side and you came back with capacity in your response.

Statistically the North West has more passengers than Yorkshire and Yorkshire has more passengers than the North East. So if you're saying the North West has more carriages than Yorkshire then it means Northern (and TPE) have got one thing right.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,570
Location
South London
Nothing like as many as the doubled up Manchester Airport - Preston/Lancaster services
That's because it's portion worked to Barrow/Glasgow and Edinburgh/Windermere. Best way to look at it is 2 3-car services departing Piccadilly concurrently, not 1 6-car service.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,999
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
That run at half the frequency of Manchester - Huddersfeild - Leeds services....
Manchester - Preston is four/hour (albeit some services run by Northern with doubled up 156s or single 180s), Manchester - Leeds is four hour (plus some significantly slower services via Rochdale)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's because it's portion worked to Barrow/Glasgow and Edinburgh/Windermere. Best way to look at it is 2 3-car services departing Piccadilly concurrently, not 1 6-car service.
Its still a six coach train (on the four/hour services from Manchester to Preston).

I'd be happy if some of the TPE services through Leeds had portions to/from Middlesbrough/Scarborough (etc), if it meant a six coach train on the busy section.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,418
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Can anyone tell me (preferably in some nice, succinct bullet points) exactly what Phase 2 of the Northern Hub projects is intended to entail?
In addition to Ordsall curve:

a) Two more platforms (P15/16) at Piccadilly to improve throughput via the MSJ&A line and the Ordsall curve. This is all elevated fancy engineering and will cost a bomb.
But without them the new curve is crippled, so improvements on to Yorks/Lancs will suffer.

b) Upgrade of Manchester Victoria

c) New loops and speed upgrade Manchester-Leeds

I guess they are baulking at the cost of the Piccadilly work.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Manchester - Preston is four/hour (albeit some services run by Northern with doubled up 156s or single 180s), Manchester - Leeds is four hour (plus some significantly slower services via Rochdale)
Like for like comparison please.

Manchester to Leeds: 4 fast trains per hour, 3 slow trains per hour. Additional (slow) services between Manchester and Huddersfield and between Huddersfield and Leeds.

Manchester to Preston: 2 fast trains per hour, 2 slow trains per hour. Additional (slow) services between Bolton and Manchester.

Let's also bring in another similar route:

Manchester to Liverpool: 3 fast trains per hour, 3 slow trains per hour. Additional (slow) services between Warrington and Liverpool.

In addition to Ordsall curve:

a) Two more platforms (P15/16) at Piccadilly to improve throughput via the MSJ&A line and the Ordsall curve. This is all elevated fancy engineering and will cost a bomb.
But without them the new curve is crippled, so improvements on to Yorks/Lancs will suffer.

b) Upgrade of Manchester Victoria

c) New loops and speed upgrade Manchester-Leeds

I guess they are baulking at the cost of the Piccadilly work.
Villers did say it wasn't an all or nothing, so it's possible one idea will be dropped and two will go forward or that two will be dropped and one will go forward.
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,401
That wouldnt make sense as the Piccadilly work is the core of the whole scheme, required for the benefits of everything else to be realised. The chord has already been approved (as it will have the longest lead times) and the platforms will have to be approved next otherwise your just adding capacity midpoint along lines which dont have it at the end.

Lot of forumers are getting over excited and turning on each other when shes just being a Conservative and saying no unconditional approvals, you have pry every penny for the North from our cold dead hands.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,751
I think we all need to stop argueing i dont think there is an answer to which side is worse.

Btw so london and the south east has 15 million and has x billion spent on it...
the North has 14 million so should get y billion spent on it (where y is approximately 95% of x). It doesnt matter that the South East has more people in less space. That doesnt alter facts at all. The north would be getting a fair deal as same amount of money is being spent on a much larger area.... so per land area the south would still get more spent on it like it should but the proportion of money spent in terms of populations numbers remains fairly steady. With most likely higher per person in south due to higher wages down there.

And i hate warm weather so i am staying up north :)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,999
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
That wouldnt make sense as the Piccadilly work is the core of the whole scheme, required for the benefits of everything else to be realised. The chord has already been approved (as it will have the longest lead times) and the platforms will have to be approved next otherwise your just adding capacity midpoint along lines which dont have it at the end.

Lot of forumers are getting over excited and turning on each other when shes just being a Conservative and saying no unconditional approvals, you have pry every penny for the North from our cold dead hands.
True, it just seems quite symbolic from us talking about aspirations like TPE North electrification, as if they were guaranteed to happen to now talking about things that we assumed *would* happen now being scaled back.

Suddenly the optimism looks to have left the building.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
True, it just seems quite symbolic from us talking about aspirations like TPE North electrification, as if they were guaranteed to happen to now talking about things that we assumed *would* happen now being scaled back.
North TPE electrification with Valley Lines electrification was suggested as Network Rail's preferred method of getting Pacers replaced.

Electrification obviously has high initial costs, so the government has a choice between ordering new DMUs as direct Pacer replacement (lower initial costs but higher lifetime costs) or electrification.

Part of the reasoning behind North West and Thames Valley electrification is new units are needed for Thameslink due to the requirements of Thameslink and the alternative would involve putting trains in to store or writing them off early, so an electrification program made sense to the last government and they just needed to decide which areas and with a new DMU order for Northern, TPE and FGW being proposed - that's how they made their decision.
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,999
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
North TPE electrification with Valley Lines electrification was suggested as Network Rail's preferred method of getting Pacers replaced.

Electrification obviously has high initial costs, so if the government has a choice between ordering new DMUs as direct Pacer replacement (lower initial costs but higher lifetime costs) or electrification.

Part of the reasoning behind North West and Thames Valley electrification is new units are needed for Thameslink due to the requirements of Thameslink and the alternative would involve putting trains in to store or writing them off early, so an electrification program made sense to the last government and they just needed to decide which areas and with a new DMU order for Northern, TPE and FGW being proposed - that's how they made their decision.
Agreed, but if the Northern Hub improvements (which we assumed were all going ahead) are now "up for debate" then "wishlist" plans like further electrification are now (in my eyes) less likely.

Sad that this has come out shortly after our new Transport Minister got her job, which doesn't set out a very positive message (even if little *real* has changed, and "stage two" of Northern Hub was never guaranteed, its a pretty negative indication of The Future.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,774
If you go back 18 months or so, the rail media were generally assuming that Thameslink would be cut back to the MML side only, and Crossrail would lose a couple of its branches, because the new government were conducting a 'major review'.

So IMHO this is simply the usual horse trading in advance of the HLOS/SofA for CP5. It's far too early for any promises to be made about what will or won't be included...
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,355
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Manchester - Preston is four/hour (albeit some services run by Northern with doubled up 156s or single 180s), Manchester - Leeds is four hour (plus some significantly slower services via Rochdale)
Sorry, but where are these doubled up 156s you speak of, every Hazel Grove - Preston diagram I've seen this week (and I should know, I commute on it!) has been a single 150, so I've given up and gone to Victoria instead...
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
2,137
Two things.

TPE electrification is not necessarily part of The Northern Hub. It might be an NR/RUS-led project with money coming from a national pot.

Secondly, with parity in rail investment - would the North be happy to pay Southern rail fares?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,999
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Sorry, but where are these doubled up 156s you speak of, every Hazel Grove - Preston diagram I've seen this week (and I should know, I commute on it!) has been a single 150, so I've given up and gone to Victoria instead...
When I mentioned that four coach EMU (e.g. 319?) would be a capacity increase on the Pacers/Sprinters currently used in Manchester, I was told that all the peak diagrams on the Preston line into/out of Manchester were at least four coach.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
23,945
Location
Yorks
Two things.

TPE electrification is not necessarily part of The Northern Hub. It might be an NR/RUS-led project with money coming from a national pot.

Secondly, with parity in rail investment - would the North be happy to pay Southern rail fares?
No - although it has to be said that outside of PTE areas, the North generally does pay Southern rail fares.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,168
Location
Redcar
No - although it has to be said that outside of PTE areas, the North generally does pay Southern rail fares.
Very true! For instance it's £4.90 for a Cottingham - Hull anytime day return. That's a journey of 6 minutes each way covering slightly under 4 miles! Burley Park - Leeds anytime day return is £2.35 for a 3 mile journey of about 4/5 minutes. Wish I lived in a PTE area.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
....
Lot of forumers are getting over excited and turning on each other when shes just being a Conservative and saying no unconditional approvals, you have pry every penny for the North from our cold dead hands.
Yes, I am quite surprised that, even once we had located the text of the full speech (which amounted to not very much to write home about), the forum gloom machine went into overdrive. Even the quoted post, which, if you removed the bits I have put in bold, would just be common sense.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Sorry, but where are these doubled up 156s you speak of, every Hazel Grove - Preston diagram I've seen this week (and I should know, I commute on it!) has been a single 150, so I've given up and gone to Victoria instead...
When I mentioned that four coach EMU (e.g. 319?) would be a capacity increase on the Pacers/Sprinters currently used in Manchester, I was told that all the peak diagrams on the Preston line into/out of Manchester were at least four coach.
In a previous thread I pointed out that there are two morning TPE peak arrivals in to Manchester from Preston operated by 6 car 185s and two morning Northern arrivals operated by 180s. This was in relation to 4 car EMUs without SDO not being best suited.

There was no mention in that thread about how many carriages are on services in the other direction at peak times, so no-one should have drawn the conclusion that all Manchester-Preston services were more than 2 carriages.

Secondly, with parity in rail investment - would the North be happy to pay Southern rail fares?
I'd pay a higher fare for a regular journey on a 142/150 in Cheshire then equivalent journeys in Kent on a 465.

The only investment I know about in Cheshire in the last couple of years is information points at a couple of village stations on the WCML, a Harrington hump at Northwich station (really given it's usage it should have got a platform rebuild) and some newly installed second hand benches on the Manchester bound platform at Knutsford and new seat covers on a few of the trains that operate in the area.
 
Last edited:

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,570
Location
South London
Secondly, with parity in rail investment - would the North be happy to pay Southern rail fares?
To be fair, Southern rail fares are quite reasonable. London - Bristol is roughly on a par with Liverpool - Scarborough (similar in terms of distance and cost per mile) and off peak fares are very good value.

Preston - Blackburn return is £5.40 SDR and similar in distance as Faversham to Canterbury which is £5.60 SDR, so not that different really. Also remember wages are higher in the south east in line with everything else.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,355
Location
Somewhere, not in London
When I mentioned that four coach EMU (e.g. 319?) would be a capacity increase on the Pacers/Sprinters currently used in Manchester, I was told that all the peak diagrams on the Preston line into/out of Manchester were at least four coach.
The're ment to be, but I coudn't fit on the 0856 this morning, and the 0912 was delayed as usual so I jumped ship onto an empty victoria service.

It's usually the case that even the off peak services would need to be 3 or 4 car for every passenger to be able to be comfortable.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,504
Location
Essex
Fact is southern railways make money. Rest of country generally loses money. Whether the fares are cheaper, or they carry more fresh air, or the journeys are longer - or all 3 most likely - isn't important. I'm sure it's the same reason why money in the north is concentrated on Madchester. More passengers means more investment.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,418
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The only investment I know about in Cheshire in the last couple of years is information points at a couple of village stations on the WCML, a Harrington hump at Northwich station (really given it's usage it should have got a platform rebuild) and some newly installed second hand benches on the Manchester bound platform at Knutsford and new seat covers on a few of the trains that operate in the area.
Plenty spent recently on station upgrades at Chester, Crewe and Warrington (both BQ and Central).

On fares it's the PTEs who have very low fares.
"Regional" fares are pretty much on a par with anywhere else.
 

RAPC

Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Messages
210
When I mentioned that four coach EMU (e.g. 319?) would be a capacity increase on the Pacers/Sprinters currently used in Manchester, I was told that all the peak diagrams on the Preston line into/out of Manchester were at least four coach.
As a commuter on those services, I can confirm they are definitely not. If it isn't a 180 rostered service, or if a 180 isn't available, then it is normally a single 150 or 156 if we're lucky.
 

sittingnev

Member
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
6
Hi guys
like i said in my orig post, i dont usually post, just tend to lurk, so no big deal really.
Its not often I am first with anything, and actually have the time @ work to post let alone reply. (and even less often have the knowlege to)
I wouldnt be to offended if this one gets closed in favour of the other one.
Cheers
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Fact is southern railways make money. Rest of country generally loses money.
One reason for that is because electric trains that are used on most South East services are more cost effective than diesel trains that are used on most North of England services. If the South East were using 150s for a lot of their services the amount of money they make would drop significantly.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,447
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
One reason for that is because electric trains that are used on most South East services are more cost effective than diesel trains that are used on most North of England services. If the South East were using 150s for a lot of their services the amount of money they make would drop significantly.
That sounds like a claim, what about Chiltern and Thames operations? Leasing, maintenance and track access charges for 12-EMU vice 4-DMU are far higher, and it can be cheaper to use a diesel than pay NR's electricity charge (see also freight).
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
That sounds like a claim, what about Chiltern and Thames operations? Leasing, maintenance and track access charges for 12-EMU vice 4-DMU are far higher, and it can be cheaper to use a diesel than pay NR's electricity charge (see also freight).
Do you know the meaning of the word 'most'. I didn't claim there were no diesel services in the South East nor did I claim there were no electric services in the north.

What's the cost comparison like for a 6 car 185 over an 8 car EMU?
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
2,137
One reason for that is because electric trains that are used on most South East services are more cost effective than diesel trains that are used on most North of England services. If the South East were using 150s for a lot of their services the amount of money they make would drop significantly.
Hopefully patronage will shoot up when 319s or similar are used on services from Manchester to Liverpool, and both to Blackpool.

And the economics should add up, especially with much quicker and more frequent services. And then the investment should follow.

Unfortunately, the government don't like taking risks and so are much more keen on investing in growing established big markets than developing new ones.

Finally - Cheshire no investment? How about the hourly Virgin trains to Chester? A huge boost to the local economy. If east of there, choose from any of Warrington, Stockport, Wilmslow, Macclesfield for fast and frequent trains to London, Manchester and Birmingham.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top