• 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!

Theresa Villiers says Northern Hub to only go ahead in part

Status
Not open for further replies.

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Hopefully patronage will shoot up when 319s or similar are used on services from Manchester to Liverpool, and both to Blackpool.

At present the issue with 319s on Preston-Manchester is going to be how can they be used to replicate the existing peak time capacity, considering many platform lengths are 6 car and 319s don't have SDO and can't be reformed.

Currently the two Northern services arriving in Manchester between 8 and 9 are 180s while the two TPE services are 6 car 185s and these services all usually have people standing. I accept a 319 will have similar capacity to a 180 despite having a carriage less.

One solution would be to use 2x323s on Blackpool to Airport services and put the 319s on existing 323 routes. However, the existing 323 routes aren't crying out for extra carriages in the way other lines are.

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.

I said in the last couple of years. More frequent London trains from Chester and Wilmslow were introduced in 2008 and there wasn't really much of an investment to introduce that then as the enhancements were made using existing rolling stock.

You mention Warrington but Warrington actually lost out as a result of the 2008 timetable change. The half-hourly Warrington-Crewe service became hourly. While Chester did gain more direct services to London they replaced some services previously operated by ATW so the number of train services to and from Chester has remained fairly constant even though trains that previously terminated at Crewe now continue to London.

There are quite a few other places in Cheshire that lost out as a result of the 2008 WCML timetable change.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
And the west side has only 142s which is inferior to a combination of 144s and 142s.
In 2007, there were forty two 142 diagrams in the North West, compared to twenty 144 diagrams and twelve 142 diagrams in Yorkshire. I think the only major change in that time has been the closure of the Oldham loop, which will have meant a reduction in the number of North West Pacer diagrams but nonetheless the North West still "wins" in the doom and gloom Pacer stakes, if anyone's counting. But at least some of the Pacer services in the North West are doubled up. To my knowledge, this doesn't regularly happen at all on the east side of Northern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One solution would be to use 2x323s on Blackpool to Airport services and put the 319s on existing 323 routes. However, the existing 323 routes aren't crying out for extra carriages in the way other lines are.
The current 323 routes (principally Manchester to Stoke/Crewe) might benefit from 100mph EMUs replacing 90mph ones though. Although there is often only a short distance between stations for the stoppers, especially on the Crewe route, that would surely help keep them out of the way of the faster services over the sections where the stoppers get a chance to stretch their legs.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
But at least some of the Pacer services in the North West are doubled up. To my knowledge, this doesn't regularly happen at all on the east side of Northern.

But then some of the doubled up Pacer services could be operated by EMUs if Northern had more of them.

Also it should be noted Yorkshire's units unstrengthened are on average larger than those in the North West and North East.

From December there will be 5 car Pacer diagrams on Calder Vale.

The current 323 routes (principally Manchester to Stoke/Crewe) might benefit from 100mph EMUs replacing 90mph ones though. Although there is often only a short distance between stations for the stoppers, especially on the Crewe route, that would surely help keep them out of the way of the faster services over the sections where the stoppers get a chance to stretch their legs.

The problem is the loadings on off-peak Crewe and Alderley Edge services would fit on to a single 153. A 323 is already overkill, nevermind a 319. The main stations on that line are also served by ATW and Virgin and given patronage on the local services the Manchester to Alderley Edge service is a waste of resources.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Yes, but underproviding on a different route would be stupid too...

Personally I do think that where platform lengths are limited (principally, everything through Salford Crescent and Oxford Road, where limited to 6x23m) should be 323 operated with the 319s used on other services (this could include Victoria - Blackpool North as that isn't usually AS heavily loaded as the Hazel Grove diagrams)

And yes, the 100mph running would be very helpful down to Crewe and Stoke on Trent...

Would be even more helpful if NT could be cascaded some SDO stock but thats wishful thinking. Either way, also due to Linespeeds, 323s would be best used on the Bolton Corridor.... Their stupidly high capacity would come in handy, and they would fit nicely for the stopper into Victoria to terminate on Pt2 at Bolton, although a 319 would fit fine there too as it would never need doubling up.
 

caliwag

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2009
Messages
608
Location
York
Sorry, haven't had time to plough through all the thread but I think you'll find that it's not so much North/South population numbers as passenger receipts per head that is hugely different. I don't have the figures but I'm sure an industry watcher told me that!
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Yes, but underproviding on a different route would be stupid too...

Personally I do think that where platform lengths are limited (principally, everything through Salford Crescent and Oxford Road, where limited to 6x23m) should be 323 operated with the 319s used on other services (this could include Victoria - Blackpool North as that isn't usually AS heavily loaded as the Hazel Grove diagrams)

And yes, the 100mph running would be very helpful down to Crewe and Stoke on Trent...
Precisely. While four carriages is probably too much for the Crewe and Stoke corridors off-peak, it might not be enough for the Bolton route (Thinking more of the peak services here): Displacing 323s from the Crewe and Stoke routes with 319s, to allow the 323s to operate doubled up services through Bolton would give the Bolton route the maximum capacity the infrastructure constraints allow and give the Crewe and Stoke routes some nippier trains better able to stay out of the way of the fasts.

Do the Crewe and Stoke 323s get busy during the peaks (I've only travelled on them off-peak)? If so, then it would make sense, as a compromise option, to run 319s on Crewe and Stoke services only during the peak to allow 323s to run through Bolton, even though the 319s would be limited to 90mph schedules.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The problem is the loadings on off-peak Crewe and Alderley Edge services would fit on to a single 153. A 323 is already overkill, never mind a 319. The main stations on that line are also served by ATW and Virgin and given patronage on the local services the Manchester to Alderley Edge service is a waste of resources.

Agreed. The services that use the other line, via Manchester Airport station, do provide a better reason for the service provision on that line. This is why the dedicated hourly "airport shuttle" was first introduced.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Yeah, personally I'd use 323s on all the diagrams on the 6 car end of Manchester that NEED to be 6 car, preferably 23m, namely anything through Bolton from Oxford Road.

The irritating thing is the loadings as far as I could tell are lighter south of Piccadilly than West of Oxford Road, if space to terminate at Piccadilly could be provided by a central reversing siding then I could see the benefit in terminating at Piccadilly, but on the flip side, what would then go to Hazel Grove?

With 17 units to play with, in the morning peaks, departures off Bolton (assuming the same timetable with the stopper cut back to Bolton...

0735 Airport 323+323 (If NT) similar if TPE, who would have SDO. 2x4x20m with rear coach not opening at Salford Crescent, Deansgate and Oxford Road
0756 Hazel Grove 323+323

Basically, any route that is restricted to 6x23m gets the 323s doubled up as a priority.

Services like Bolton - All Shacks - Victoria can be run by whatever's available, 6 carrages is major overkill, and 323s are better used elsewhere doubled up on the 6x23m limited routes.

7 or 8 formations would be available.

Preston - Hazel Grove is 4...? (Top Priority)
Blackpool - Victoria (Some, some single 319s)

Would 8x20m fit on the shortened Woodhead line?
Would fit in single formation quite nicely down to Wilmslow and Manc Airport
Can't think of any issues on the route to Crewe, and the higher linespeeds would help.

So yeah.. personally I'd dedicate the 323s to being doubled up heading through Bolton. (Not at all biased, but Salford Crescent and Oxford Road knackers up 4x20/8x20m formations)

In an ideal world from Bolton btw...

1tph Wigan NW/Wallgate
1tph Terminating all shacks (Extended possibly to Horwich Parkway or Preston in the peaks)
1tph Clitheroe
1tph Preston (Hazel Grove)
1tph Blackpool (Victoria)
1tph Blackpool (Airport)
1tph Barrow and Windermere splitting at Carnforth with a new cord from the platforms to N-Bound WCML
1tph Southport (Vic or Pic)

The last three could change if Windermere is wired...

1tph Blackpool & Windermere (Airport) Split at PRE
1tph Barrow and Southport (Split at Bolton) 3 cars to each, 185 or 158 operated, in the current path of the xx:00 off airport.
1tph extra to Wigan or Blackburn (Toddy Curve)...

The latter would provide

8tph Manchester

2tph Blackpool
4tph Preston
1 or 2tph to Blackburn
2 or 3tph to Wigan

Possible extras by extesion of all shacks terminator, new reversing siding at Horwich to acompany the big car park please...
 
Last edited:

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
What interests me is why it is called the "Northern Hub". All I can see is 5 pages related to the North West.

Why isn't it the "North Western Hub"?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
It was originally called the Manchester Hub as it was centred on Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly and developed by GMPTE/Network Rail, but WYPTE complained saying the name didnt highlight the regional benefits it contained and made it harder to sell politically for them.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
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 may be true right now, but it's not always true. Anyway the sums spent on fuel are way less than the income generated - 5% would be a good rule of thumb on a southern TOC. They don't really affect the profitability that much.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I have read this thread from start to finish at least three times and still to be convinced of the exact amendments of dimunation that are supposed to be under review. What am I missing in concrete terms that has been said...or is it speculation running rife?
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
The speech given by Theresa Villiers which has started this thread included this which I have copied from the DfT website;

"Rail investment in the north

There are a number of reasons why the Chancellor chose to prioritise investment in rail.

Not only can rail deliver growth. It can deliver more balanced sustainable economic growth across the country, helping to tackle the prosperity gap that continues to divide North and South.

So £300m will be invested in rail electrification in the North West over the next 6 years, upgrading crucial routes between Manchester, Liverpool, and Wigan.

This will deliver significant environmental, economic and passenger benefits.

It will also allow these lines to benefit from the rolling stock cascade triggered by the Thameslink programme and allow existing diesel trains to be used on other routes.

Thirty years after it was first proposed, the Ordsall Chord has finally got the go ahead.

Phase one of the Northern Hub programme, the Ordsall Chord project will tackle a major bottleneck in the network, and enable faster and much more frequent services to run across the North of England - including between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, and Hull.

Real investment in rail in the north.

And real support for the Northern economy.

We also recognise the benefits that the remainder of the Northern Hub programme could offer.

We’ll be looking very seriously at the whole proposal in the run up to next July’s HLOS 2 statement.

But there’s no doubt that the package as a whole is an expensive one.

Affordability issues will need careful consideration, and it will be necessary to make a judgment on the different components individually.

This is unlikely to be an ‘all-or-nothing’ decision.

Alongside measures to improve the infrastructure, we’re also modernising our rolling stock.

The next generation of Intercity Express trains is due to be built by Hitachi at a new assembly plant in County Durham … creating at least 500 jobs directly, plus thousands more in the supply chain.

In total, we’re investing in 2,700 new carriages across the rail network to ease overcrowding on many routes.

Right here in Leeds commuters are set to benefit from an extra 2,000 seats a day.

Now I know that talking about rolling stock in the north of England can be risky if you’re the rail minister.

I know that many passengers would like to see the Pacers heading into retirement.

But you here in this room will know that building a business case for new rolling stock is always going to be difficult when fares in much of the north of England lag so very far behind the rest of the country."

All that is said is that in the next year the Government will look at the proposals and look for best value for money which is a standard approach for any government department.

The key message from the speech is not about the Northern Hub but the bit about rail fares in essentially PTE areas which are considered too low to support renewal of rolling stock and mirrors several other comments from the DfT over the last 6 months.

Perhaps Cllr James Lewis is trying to distract people away from the fares issue for which of course he is responsible!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
The speech given by Theresa Villiers which has started this thread included this which I have copied from the DfT website;

It was linked to in post #6 of this thread. I guess people don't always follow the links, or they'd have already realised there was nothing much at all to justify the original post and its title...
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
"But you here in this room will know that building a business case for new rolling stock is always going to be difficult when fares in much of the north of England lag so very far behind the rest of the country."

The key message from the speech is not about the Northern Hub but the bit about rail fares in essentially PTE areas which are considered too low to support renewal of rolling stock and mirrors several other comments from the DfT over the last 6 months.

Perhaps Cllr James Lewis is trying to distract people away from the fares issue for which of course he is responsible!

The issue of fares is one that keeps creeping up. Now, I disagree with the statement that fares "lag so very far behind the rest of the country". That may be true if you stick within PTE boundaries, but if you don't the difference really isn't that much! I really wish people (including political figures) wouldn't take PTE fares as the norm in the North.

In Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire, we have no PTE, unlike those in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire. My daily journey of 16 miles costs, as priced by Northern, £7.10 Anytime Single (I have a season) - no off-peak fare either. The rolling stock is still Pacers, the route enters no PTE area. Others are in the same position.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
"We also recognise the benefits that the remainder of the Northern Hub programme could offer. We’ll be looking very seriously at the whole proposal in the run up to next July’s HLOS 2 statement. But there’s no doubt that the package as a whole is an expensive one. Affordability issues will need careful consideration, and it will be necessary to make a judgement on the different components individually".

Does this mean that it will be July 2012 before we know where we are with regards to the Northern Hub? Forgive me, I am not at my best on Saturdays.:roll:
 

Lampshade

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2009
Messages
3,713
Location
South London
The issue of fares is one that keeps creeping up. Now, I disagree with the statement that fares "lag so very far behind the rest of the country". That may be true if you stick within PTE boundaries, but if you don't the difference really isn't that much! I really wish people (including political figures) wouldn't take PTE fares as the norm in the North.

In Lancashire, Cumbria and Cheshire, we have no PTE, unlike those in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire. My daily journey of 16 miles costs, as priced by Northern, £7.10 Anytime Single (I have a season) - no off-peak fare either. The rolling stock is still Pacers, the route enters no PTE area. Others are in the same position.

It's something they conveniently overlook when you consider London Midland has new stock aplenty and fares in the West Midlands are on a par with those in West Yorkshire.

Birmingham to Coventry for instance is similar in distance to Bradford to Wakefield - and the same price - £6.60 SDR.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
It's something they conveniently overlook when you consider London Midland has new stock aplenty and fares in the West Midlands are on a par with those in West Yorkshire.

Birmingham to Coventry for instance is similar in distance to Bradford to Wakefield - and the same price - £6.60 SDR.

Yes, Northern can't have new stock because of highly subsidised fares in certain areas but London Midland and Scotrail can...

This is why I was very annoyed by the statement in that speech about how fares "in much of the North of England lag so very far behind the rest of the country". It's just not true.

Comparisons seem to be constantly made between Northern England fares and the South East, when really, is that an appropriate comparison? There are more regions that those two! The West Midlands as you very aptly point out, benefits from newer stock and PTE fares!
 
Last edited:

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Comparisons seem to be constantly made between Northern England fares and the South East, when really, is that an appropriate comparison? There are more regions that those two! The West Midlands as you very aptly point out, benefits from newer stock and PTE fares!

It's not an appropriate comparison at all. It would be fairer to say that fares in London and the South East are higher than the rest of the country, but even this sort of statement covers up an awful lot of anomalies whereby some fares in some areas can be considerably cheaper than some other fares in some other areas. Such generalisations are best avoided completely, particularly by politicians who have been briefed by advisors who don't understand the fares system at all.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Does this mean that it will be July 2012 before we know where we are with regards to the Northern Hub?

To the extent that that is when the HLOS/SofA announcement for CP5 gets made, then yes, as that is the timetable set up in the 2005 Railways Act.

Basically 5 years after the last announcement, which was made in July 2007 for the 2009 -14 period.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Glasgow
It's not an appropriate comparison at all. It would be fairer to say that fares in London and the SOuth East are higher than the rest of the country, but even this sort of statement covers up an awful lot of anomalies whereby some fares in some areas cna be considerably cheaper than some fares in some other areas. Such generalisations are best avoided compeltely, particularly by politicians who have been briefed by advisors who don;t understand the fares system at all.

I agree completely with that! It's too general to just say 'X area is cheaper than Y area", but I guess politicians and their advisors must think like that...
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,848
Location
t'North
Does this mean that it will be July 2012 before we know where we are with regards to the Northern Hub?
Correct. That has always been the proposed date from Network Rail for the full funding decision but part of the plans - Ordsall Chord - have been brought forward and funding approved.

This news item appears to be a report of one person's comments at the meeting. I don't think anyone could realistically expect the government to simply give the green light to the full proposals without examining them closely, so it's something of a non-story for me.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A Zone 1-6 Travelcard in London is £8.00 (Oyster "cap", off peak)
, which you could use for dozens of journeys, like Heathrow to Docklands...

...an off peak single from Grimsby to Scunthorpe is £11.10.

The TOC should still be getting a reasonable price for journeys in PTE areas, its just that the "Government" share of that money is higher (because the low ticket price is subsidised by higher "state" support, but the TOC still gets the full price).
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Relating to what's been said about why the North should get less funding than the South East it's worth noting that the population of all of Scotland is 1.5 million less than the population of the North West England.

So on people's reasoning that it's fair for the North to get millions while London and South East get billions, I assume a fair share for Scotland in their opinion is just enough funds to refurbish a 158 over the course of the franchise.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Relating to what's been said about why the North should get less funding than the South East it's worth noting that the population of all of Scotland is 1.5 million less than the population of the North West England. So on people's reasoning that it's fair for the North to get millions while London and South East get billions, I assume a fair share for Scotland in their opinion is just enough funds to refurbish a 158 over the course of the franchise.

Statistics can be seen as a cruel method of evaluation in the cold light of day, but I am sure that Scotland will find an arcane law in their statute book which will prevent financial comparisons to those that you show above.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,857
However, South East and London projects always bring in far bigger Cost-Benefit Ratios than those elsewhere, so obviously projects down there are going to occur sooner, if at all.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Relating to what's been said about why the North should get less funding than the South East it's worth noting that the population of all of Scotland is 1.5 million less than the population of the North West England.

So on people's reasoning that it's fair for the North to get millions while London and South East get billions, I assume a fair share for Scotland in their opinion is just enough funds to refurbish a 158 over the course of the franchise.

The major difference being that North West England has had lots of investment over the years, such as the brand new 185s replacing the barely new 175s on some services (Manchester Airport - Blackpool/Barrow).

But whilst these are DMUs on routes in North West England, they aren't part of the Northern franchise. The splitting of Transpennine from "local" has created a different situation to Scotrail (where all Scottish services are run by FSR, and only services to/from England are operated by another TOC).
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The major difference being that North West England has had lots of investment over the years, such as the brand new 185s replacing the barely new 175s on some services (Manchester Airport - Blackpool/Barrow).

That was for political reasons more than anything else. As soon as FNW had got all the 175s in service after the initial teething problems they were transferred to the new expanded Wales franchise and some were loaned back to be used on North West routes until replacement stock was obtained.

Scotland has got a nice new fleet of 380s and still retain a large 170 fleet (built around the same time as the 175s), in addition to the 334s.

Since 2006 the only investment in new stock the North West has is cascaded stock that is surplus to requirements elsewhere in the country due to being replaced by newer/better stock.

But whilst these are DMUs on routes in North West England, they aren't part of the Northern franchise. The splitting of Transpennine from "local" has created a different situation to Scotrail (where all Scottish services are run by FSR, and only services to/from England are operated by another TOC).

That's something that applies to almost all of England. The 4x156s being transferred from Northern to EMT will actually benefit the North West and South Yorkshire through longer trains between Liverpool and Nottingham via Sheffield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
However, South East and London projects always bring in far bigger Cost-Benefit Ratios than those elsewhere, so obviously projects down there are going to occur sooner, if at all.

The question is why should so many projects in the South East be supported by funding from taxes where the funds come from everyone not just from the South East? I appreciate a higher amount of tax is paid in total by people in the South East but the amount spent is disproportionate.
 

RichW1

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2010
Messages
400
Location
Harrogate
Just to be pedantic but having studied metronomics I can't help doing it but...

The metropolitan area around the peak district which is continuous urbanised land use even if only just is home to 17 million now in 2011. London and the southeast id home to 19 million in 2011 (15 million of which is the metropolitan area of London continuously sprawling out from the core, and both figures will be revised upwards.

So, we have two MASSIVE metropolitan areas that are predominant and amongst the largest on the entire planet and as infill development happens the north will be joined to the south over the next 20 years loosely and moreso thereafter SO.....

the idea that Manchester or anywhere else in the north should not get vast sums spending on it seems crazy in a time we need to be looking to the future and looking to spend on capital projects....London is getting that spend in spades and upgrading its already 'best public transport network in the world' title given by many barometers of city economies Price Waterhouse Coopers being just one.

The north needs spending much greater than that mooted and I'm actually a Londoner but I do see a future 30 years down the line of two vast economic areas of GDP growth and enterprise both offering something different. Yes a centralised London will offer something different to polycentric centres in the north but if cities grow economies quicker and knowledge is shared faster, we have a chance to connect the north better together and with the rest of the UK....why wait?!

The north it should be pointed out has a FAR SUPERIOR road network to London and the Southeast and rail it's the other way round so it's not all bad but now we need to even that out!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top