Transpennine Scottish services.

[notlob.divad]

I was not sure the best place to ask this, it is not about the rolling stock so I didn't want to put it on the open thread.

Why has it been decided to run the Liverpool - Newcastle service through to Edinburgh, rather than run the new Manchester Airport - Newcastle service through turning the Liverpool one back at Newcastle.

If this was done, Manchester Airport to Glasgow could still run every 2 hours up the WCML, but it would free up a path in the alternate hours to run a quicker Liverpool-Edinburgh via Preston. The same path every 2 hours on the Bolton - Manchester - Manchester Airport corridor could then be used for a service that wouldn't put pickup/set down only restrictions on passengers at Bolton, and could potentially connect to places that are loosing out.

I am sure there must be a reason why someone feels this all needs connecting in the way that it is being, but I can't see it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I was not sure the best place to ask this, it is not about the rolling stock so I didn't want to put it on the open thread.

Why has it been decided to run the Liverpool - Newcastle service through to Edinburgh, rather than run the new Manchester Airport - Newcastle service through turning the Liverpool one back at Newcastle.

If this was done, Manchester Airport to Glasgow could still run every 2 hours up the WCML, but it would free up a path in the alternate hours to run a quicker Liverpool-Edinburgh via Preston. The same path every 2 hours on the Bolton - Manchester - Manchester Airport corridor could then be used for a service that wouldn't put pickup/set down only restrictions on passengers at Bolton, and could potentially connect to places that are loosing out.

I am sure there must be a reason why someone feels this all needs connecting in the way that it is being, but I can't see it.

There's demand for an hourly direct service between Scotland and Manchester via Preston. The extension of the Liverpool-Newcastle service to Edinburgh is really only to provide better connections between the North East of England and Edinburgh, rather than to provide a useful end-to-end service. The Liverpool-Glasgow services will be in addition to the existing ones and initially, there will only be three services per day. These will provide an additional regional service from the North West of England to Glasgow that so happens to turn west rather than east south of Preston.

 

[Blindtraveler]

In reality I invisage there being very few on noorth of Newcastle unless a huge quota of rock bottom advances that undercut the existing opperaters on the route esp at short notice. I would also hope that if as will inevitably happen these trains pic up delays through the core that theyl be turned at NCL rather than causing a congestion headake in Edinburgh as the XC, VT and Scotrail Borders, North Berwick and Berwick On Tweed stoppers fight for paths

 

[notlob.divad]

There's demand for an hourly direct service between Scotland and Manchester via Preston.

Under current services I agree, but we are talking about future services. There cannot be demand on services that don't exist. Without knowing the Manchester to Edinburgh direct timings and cost via the ECML, we do not know whether 'demand' as you put it will move. Equally we have no idea of the demand on Liverpool bound Scottish services as none exist. Also where exactly is the demand, end to end will be covered via another route, Preston - Bolton - Manchester even as far as Lancaster could be covered by a more dedicated Regional express.

The extension of the Liverpool-Newcastle service to Edinburgh is really only to provide better connections between the North East of England and Edinburgh, rather than to provide a useful end-to-end service.

A similar statement could be said about most train services. But the truth is seeing you can get a direct train to a destination is in itself an encouragement to take a train.

The Liverpool-Glasgow services will be in addition to the existing ones and initially, there will only be three services per day. These will provide an additional regional service from the North West of England to Glasgow that so happens to turn west rather than east south of Preston.

Exactly just like a Liverpool - Edinburgh via Preston service would still provide the same North West - Edinburgh connection that happens to turn West rather than East and also gives an additional connection at the Hub station of Wigan.

 

[Iskra]

In reality I invisage there being very few on noorth of Newcastle unless a huge quota of rock bottom advances that undercut the existing opperaters on the route esp at short notice. I would also hope that if as will inevitably happen these trains pic up delays through the core that theyl be turned at NCL rather than causing a congestion headake in Edinburgh as the XC, VT and Scotrail Borders, North Berwick and Berwick On Tweed stoppers fight for paths

I think you're under estimating the demand from West Yorkshire-Edinburgh. Huddersfield should provide a decent number of passengers and the Leeds-Edinburgh market is currently suppressed by XC's terrible service, with expensive tickets and poor capacity. You only have to look at the 1 per day 0710 VTEC service from Leeds-Abetdeen to see how much potential a decent train service has on this route- it's very popular and empties at Edinburgh, not Newcastle.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I remane unconvinced but I guess we'll see

Granted the morning HST is busy but XC is too and many use it so cant see them shifting to a slower train unless theres a huge price insentive

 

[43074]

I remane unconvinced but I guess we'll see

Granted the morning HST is busy but XC is too and many use it so cant see them shifting to a slower train unless theres a huge price insentive

With 125mph stock there's no reason the TPE services won't be as fast, if not faster depending on calling patterns of XC services North of Newcastle; TPE have already said they will only be calling at Morpeth between Newcastle and Edinburgh. With the AT300s running as EMUs between York and Edinburgh there's no reason they won't be as fast as the XC services at the moment. The actual timetabling (e.g. the amount of dwell time) will affect whether or not the TPE services are faster.

 

[Camden]

Regardless of new rolling stock, the Edinburgh via Newcastle route will likely be slower than via a change at Preston or Wigan from Liverpool by about half an hour. I think the only beneficial aspect of it for Liverpool is that it pops the name up on the departures board in Edinburgh once an hour, reminding people the place exists. For Edinburgh it does provide additional connectivity to Newcastle, York, Leeds and Manchester, the latter will be time neutral so this is an improvement for Manchester rather than Liverpool.

What it does do though is increase the risk of the train not running to time, which is an inevitable risk when you make a route longer, let alone one which already passes through several congestion prone hubs.

Pretty rubbish really.

 

[notlob.divad]

Regardless of new rolling stock, the Edinburgh via Newcastle route will likely be slower than via a change at Preston or Wigan from Liverpool by about half an hour. I think the only beneficial aspect of it for Liverpool is that it pops the name up on the departures board in Edinburgh once an hour, reminding people the place exists. For Edinburgh it does provide additional connectivity to Newcastle, York, Leeds and Manchester, the latter will be time neutral so this is an improvement for Manchester rather than Liverpool.

What it does do though is increase the risk of the train not running to time, which is an inevitable risk when you make a route longer, let alone one which already passes through several congestion prone hubs.

Pretty rubbish really.

Agreed, and yet the same level of inter-connectivity could be achieved by extending the Ringway - Newcastle service and giving Liverpool direct access to the two both ends of the Scottish central belt via the WCML. From the last Manchester stop the timing is going to be similar once the Bi-modes start running flat out up the ECML, and with a regular hourly service from both Manchester Stations it should become the default Manchester-Edinburgh option. However it won't significantly reduce crowding on the WCML services as having got one last Friday it was the Manchester to Lancaster Section that was packed, topped up by a huge flow of people joining from the Liverpool stopping service at Wigan.

I just think it is daft to be providing a trippling of connectivity at one location justified by the existence or absence of 'passengers demand' when the demand exists on the current service mainly because it is the only one that runs.

 

[Camden]

Given the loading levels on the Manchester to Preston to Scotland services are hammered by commuter flows between Preston and Manchester, and absorbing northbound traffic from Liverpool at Preston, it would make eminent sense to do what you're suggesting, which opens up all kinds of possibilities including splitting some services at Preston to serve both Manchester and Liverpool. Preston in turn could do with some proper commuter trains, and this would then remove the dilemma about whether to stop these at key intermediate stations.

I imagine the driver for doing it the way it is stated may simply have been a way of maximising profit by serving more people between York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Making them out of the Liverpool trains then just an easy way of saying you've given the city's lobbyists what they want without having to do much else than make more money for yourself.

I also think the three trains a day proposition from Glasgow is naff.

 

[43074]

Regardless of new rolling stock, the Edinburgh via Newcastle route will likely be slower than via a change at Preston or Wigan from Liverpool by about half an hour. I think the only beneficial aspect of it for Liverpool is that it pops the name up on the departures board in Edinburgh once an hour, reminding people the place exists. For Edinburgh it does provide additional connectivity to Newcastle, York, Leeds and Manchester, the latter will be time neutral so this is an improvement for Manchester rather than Liverpool.

What it does do though is increase the risk of the train not running to time, which is an inevitable risk when you make a route longer, let alone one which already passes through several congestion prone hubs.

Pretty rubbish really.

It isn't really about people going from Edinburgh to Liverpool though, if you make that journey it will still be quicker to change at Preston, as you say. Edinburgh to Leeds/Huddersfield & possibly Manchester depending on journey times will be the main places to benefit, it only goes to Liverpool because the Edinburgh services will be extensions of the current Liverpool to Newcastle service.

 

[DarloRich]

surely these services are about improving conections from Yorkshire & the north east to Edinburgh rather than a through service, although it will be popular as such if priced sensibly.

 

[Haydn1971]

It isn't really about people going from Edinburgh to Liverpool though, if you make that journey it will still be quicker to change at Preston, as you say. Edinburgh to Leeds/Huddersfield & possibly Manchester depending on journey times will be the main places to benefit, it only goes to Liverpool because the Edinburgh services will be extensions of the current Liverpool to Newcastle service.

Exactly, just as XC services you don't get passengers going Glasgow - Birmingham/Reading etc... It's moving towards opening new options for passengers near the M62 corridor

 

[47271]

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I travel a lot between Edinburgh and Liverpool and I don't think this is as bad an idea as is being made out here, even for end to end journeys.

If I can get settled with my laptop the extra time spent onboard created by going via Newcastle doesn't matter to me, so long as they don't try to charge more for the longer journey. Regardless of route, extensive availability of direct trains will be very useful to me.

Whatever way you look at it, it's far better than what we have at the moment: horribly overcrowded trains, especially south of Lancaster, and time wasted changing onto a Northern rattlebox at Wigan.

 

[notlob.divad]

It isn't really about people going from Edinburgh to Liverpool though, if you make that journey it will still be quicker to change at Preston, as you say. Edinburgh to Leeds/Huddersfield & possibly Manchester depending on journey times will be the main places to benefit, it only goes to Liverpool because the Edinburgh services will be extensions of the current Liverpool to Newcastle service.

surely these services are about improving conections from Yorkshire & the north east to Edinburgh rather than a through service, although it will be popular as such if priced sensibly.

But that could be achieved in exactly the same manner by extending the new Manchester Airport to Newcastle service rather than the Liverpool Service. I am not arguing against the benefit for people from Leeds/Huddersfield, I am just proposing to achieve the same in a different manner.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I travel a lot between Edinburgh and Liverpool and I don't think this is as bad an idea as is being made out here, even for end to end journeys.

If I can get settled with my laptop the extra time spent onboard created by going via Newcastle doesn't matter to me, so long as they don't try to charge more for the longer journey. Regardless of route, extensive availability of direct trains will be very useful to me.

Whatever way you look at it, it's far better than what we have at the moment: horribly overcrowded trains, especially south of Lancaster, and time wasted changing onto a Northern rattlebox at Wigan.

A direct service is always more desirable for the reasons you point out. Both options would provide that direct connection, but the WCML option would be both quicker and less susceptible to delays, without having any major disbenefit for the other population areas and actually freeing up a path on alternate hours along the busy Bolton corridor.

 

[Starmill]

I think one of the most important effects of this change will be the increased service between Edinburgh or Morpeth and Leeds. There will also be new opportunities for through trains to Edinburgh and Morpeth to Huddersfield and vice versa which don't currently exist. Secondary factors: through trains for Morpeth to Manchester and possible faster journeys to there from Newcastle - as well as the latter going to 2tph, which I think is a significant benefit.

 

[Greybeard33]

I believe the DfT based the service requirements on two assumptions:

1. There is more demand for travel (all modes, not just rail) from Edinburgh to Greater Manchester and the Airport than to Merseyside
2. On the whole, changing trains is especially inconvenient for travellers to/from a major regional airport

Unless there is good evidence to refute this, Ministers are unlikely to risk antagonising users of the existing Edinburgh service.

 

[notlob.divad]

I believe the DfT based the service requirements on two assumptions:

1. There is more demand for travel (all modes, not just rail) from Edinburgh to Greater Manchester and the Airport than to Merseyside
2. On the whole, changing trains is especially inconvenient for travellers to/from a major regional airport

Unless there is good evidence to refute this, Ministers are unlikely to risk antagonising users of the existing Edinburgh service.

Agreed, totally it is all based upon assumptions and the problem is assumptions are self-fulfilling. You put on a service people use it so you pat yourself on the back as a job well done. You cut a service people can't use it. therefore there is no demand so you did a good job.

Point 1 How do we obtain 'the evidence'. A direct service doesn't exist to anywhere north of Preston at the moment. Despite it being clear how many people shuffle across onto it at the moment. A direct service would only stimulate more demand not lessen what is already there.

Point 2, I have never suggested making people from Edinburgh / North East change trains to get to the airport. I just suggested running Edinburgh's airport connection via the ECML rather than the WCML. This actually gets more destinations a direct airport service as everywhere on the WCML route (with the exception of Haymarket) would still have its connection via the Glasgow service, whilst Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar would gain one from the Edinburgh - Newcastle ... - Airport service.

 

[43074]

Point 2, I have never suggested making people from Edinburgh / North East change trains to get to the airport. I just suggested running Edinburgh's airport connection via the ECML rather than the WCML. This actually gets more destinations a direct airport service as everywhere on the WCML route (with the exception of Haymarket) would still have its connection via the Glasgow service, whilst Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar would gain one from the Edinburgh - Newcastle ... - Airport service.

Are you aware that the only place TPE have applied to call at North of Newcastle is Morpeth? Therefore your comment about Berwick & Dunbar is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[notlob.divad]

Are you aware that the only place TPE have applied to call at North of Newcastle is Morpeth? Therefore your comment about Berwick & Dunbar is pretty much irrelevant.

I was not thank you for pointing that out. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't and doesn't doesn't really change the point I was making.

I just suggested running Edinburgh's airport connection via the ECML rather than the WCML. This actually gets more a new destination a direct airport service as everywhere on the WCML route (with the exception of Haymarket (which is in Edinburgh)) would still have its connection via the Glasgow service, whilst Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar would gain one from the Edinburgh - Newcastle ... - Airport service, and Berwick and Dunbar could gain one whilst speeding up the main ECML sevice

 

[Greybeard33]

Edinburgh would have a slower service, while Lockerbie, Carlisle and Penrith would all have a less frequent Airport service.

People generally kick up a bigger political stink when their existing service is cut than when they do not get a new service they never had before.

 

[adrock1976]

My take on the TP to Edinburgh Waverley via York is that like other posts above, it may not necessarily be end to end journeys, but possibly overlapping journeys, such as Edinburgh - Morpeth, Morpeth - Ledds City, Newcastle Central - Manchester, etc. As it is presently tricky to do local and regional journeys by rail within historic Northumberland (with the exception of Newcastle), any improvement in frequency combined with calling points to match can be a good thing.

At some point in the future what I would like to see regarding the Manchester - Glasgow and Edinburgh service is for the present Bristol Temple Meads - Manchester Piccadilly short XC workings to continue north, calling at Bolton TS, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme: The Lake District, Penrith, Carlisle Citadel, Lockerbie, then Motherwell and Glasgow Central, or Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley.

This would restore the links that were lost from points north of Preston to the South West, Birmingham - Bolton, and Stafford and Stoke on Trent to points north of Manchester and Preston.

While we are at it, the VTWC calls to be restored at Motherwell that were cut in the December 2008 timetable change. Although the frequency between Glasgow Central and London via Trent Valley Railway was increased, the calls at Motherwell were not, with the same effect at Watford Junction resulting in cuts to their Intercity services.

 

[Camden]

Agreed, totally it is all based upon assumptions and the problem is assumptions are self-fulfilling. You put on a service people use it so you pat yourself on the back as a job well done. You cut a service people can't use it. therefore there is no demand so you did a good job.

Point 1 How do we obtain 'the evidence'. A direct service doesn't exist to anywhere north of Preston at the moment. Despite it being clear how many people shuffle across onto it at the moment. A direct service would only stimulate more demand not lessen what is already there.

Point 2, I have never suggested making people from Edinburgh / North East change trains to get to the airport. I just suggested running Edinburgh's airport connection via the ECML rather than the WCML. This actually gets more destinations a direct airport service as everywhere on the WCML route (with the exception of Haymarket) would still have its connection via the Glasgow service, whilst Morpeth, Berwick and Dunbar would gain one from the Edinburgh - Newcastle ... - Airport service.

I think those are very valid points. In the TPE consultation exercise I thought the response from Scotland, lobbying for direct Liverpool services, was notable including the statement that these journeys are under counted and demand under measured.

The small numbers of people travelling to and from the airport shouldn't be prioritised over people travelling to a city, it wouldn't make any sense to and I believe we saw acceptance of that in action with the axing of the Heathrow HS2 spur. If Heathrow can't justify its own long distance intercity services then I think that gives a pretty good idea as to Manchester Airport's correct priority.

 

[Philip C]

I think those are very valid points. In the TPE consultation exercise I thought the response from Scotland, lobbying for direct Liverpool services, was notable including the statement that these journeys are under counted and demand under measured.

The small numbers of people travelling to and from the airport shouldn't be prioritised over people travelling to a city, it wouldn't make any sense to and I believe we saw acceptance of that in action with the axing of the Heathrow HS2 spur. If Heathrow can't justify its own long distance intercity services then I think that gives a pretty good idea as to Manchester Airport's correct priority.

But the Edinburgh to Manchester services form part of the service between Carlisle, Penrith, Windermere/Kendal etc. and Manchester City Centre. The fact that they are extended to Manchester Airport is not instead of serving the city centre; it is an extra. So the choice is between serving Liverpool City Centre and serving Manchester City Centre plus Manchester Airport.

If the choice were between running to Lime Street or to Manchester Airport (without calling at Oxford Road & Piccadilly) I might share your view - but that is not the case.

The creation of a limited service between Lime Street and Glasgow as well as an hourly through service to Edinburgh, albeit the long way round, gives the opportunity to demonstrate demand for further direct services. Your desire for more services into Liverpool is understandable. Your constant denigration of highly successful services into Manchester is rather tiresome.

 

[randyrippley]

Point 1 How do we obtain 'the evidence'. A direct service doesn't exist to anywhere north of Preston at the moment. Despite it being clear how many people shuffle across onto it at the moment. A direct service would only stimulate more demand not lessen what is already there.

Compare the competing traffic routes at peak periods
Look at the traffic jams on the M61 into Manchester, with the free flows into Liverpool on the M58. I think you'll find most traffic from Scotland, North Lancs and Cumbria is headed into Manchester - and thats the route the trains are needed on. Suggesting the removal of services from Manchester to the north is just simply ignoring the facts.

 

[Camden]

Compare the competing traffic routes at peak periods
Look at the traffic jams on the M61 into Manchester, with the free flows into Liverpool on the M58. I think you'll find most traffic from Scotland, North Lancs and Cumbria is headed into Manchester - and thats the route the trains are needed on. Suggesting the removal of services from Manchester to the north is just simply ignoring the facts.

The M58 isn't the route you'd typically use to/from the north from Liverpool, as the end of it dumps you near Aintree which is a real pig to get to most of the city from. You can access the working docs via there, but not much else without crawling to your destination. As a motorway it was never finished, and primarily serves only those docks and Skelmersdale.

I think there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of substantial flows to and from Liverpool to the north, along with complicating issues of the Preston to Manchester trains being used for commutes. I don't believe anyone is suggesting removing anything, but simply reorganising. If a train from Manchester take three hours to reach Edinburgh via the west coast main line and three hours to reach Edinburgh via the east coast main line, then switching some of those trains from the west to east coast to provide a more balanced service to its neighbouring city doesn't seem horrific to me. Given the commuting issues, I would think there is much to be said for giving considerable thought as to how this could work out, where a Scotland to Preston to Manchester transpennine service via the west coast could be replaced by a more useful and roomy Preston to Manchester all stations commuter and a Scottish service via the east coast.

 

[Senex]

I think there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of substantial flows to and from Liverpool to the north, along with complicating issues of the Preston to Manchester trains being used for commutes. I don't believe anyone is suggesting removing anything, but simply reorganising. If a train from Manchester take three hours to reach Edinburgh via the west coast main line and three hours to reach Edinburgh via the east coast main line, then switching some of those trains from the west to east coast to provide a more balanced service to its neighbouring city doesn't seem horrific to me. Given the commuting issues, I would think there is much to be said for giving considerable thought as to how this could work out, where a Scotland to Preston to Manchester transpennine service via the west coast could be replaced by a more useful and roomy Preston to Manchester all stations commuter and a Scottish service via the east coast.

It seems a little unlikely that the East Coast route from Manchester to Edinburgh could ever be as fast as the West Coast route could potentially be, not least because of the considerable distance penalty. As others have said, the main objective of the new service seems to be to improve facilities for Leeds, with the side-benefit of giving Huddersfield a direct Scotland service, rather than competing for Manchester to Edinburgh traffic. Given the proven success of the Manchester to Edinburgh service (with evidence of the amount of traffic available to compete for coming from the competing air services as well) it would seem perverse to suggest that they should be replaced by "a more useful and roomy Preston to Manchester all stations commuter ... service" -- the TPE services are at least trying to offer InterCity standards on a route for too long ignored, with Manchester's claims for InterCity connections with Scotland being at least as strong as those of Birmingham and Liverpool.

None of this is to say that there is not a strong case for better provision for traffic between Scotland and Liverpool, but that better provision should not be at the expense of Manchester.

 

[Camden]

None of this is to say that there is not a strong case for better provision for traffic between Scotland and Liverpool, but that better provision should not be at the expense of Manchester.

This seems to be the fundamental issue, though. For as long as the Scotland to Manchester via Preston trains continue to be heavily used by commuters between Preston and Manchester, there seems little prospect of properly serving Liverpool hourly without there being some kind of compromise found. The flipside of your argument is that an average provision for Liverpool shouldn't be precluded by concentrating solely on delivering for Manchester. A sensible fit would seem to be a six carriage train which splits in half at Preston, but this seems problematic regarding those short distance commuters.

 

[Senex]

A sensible fit would seem to be a six carriage train which splits in half at Preston, but this seems problematic regarding those short distance commuters.

A very real problem, and not just here -- compare Huddersfield to Leeds (TPE) and Wakefield to Leeds (XC and VTEC). The only real solution is the German one of tickets for commuter trains not being available on InterCity services -- price the commuters off, and deliver a better quality of service to the longer-distance passengers.That might not be so unattractive to English ears if combined with some sort of South Lancashire (i.e. the historic county) "Verkehrsverbund" with attractive Verkehrsverbund pricing .

 

[43074]

A very real problem, and not just here -- compare Huddersfield to Leeds (TPE) and Wakefield to Leeds (XC and VTEC). The only real solution is the German one of tickets for commuter trains not being available on InterCity services -- price the commuters off, and deliver a better quality of service to the longer-distance passengers.That might not be so unattractive to English ears if combined with some sort of South Lancashire (i.e. the historic county) "Verkehrsverbund" with attractive Verkehrsverbund pricing .

Half the problem is that there's insufficient capacity to provide a reasonable mix of long distance services alongside good local services, it's the same here as the discussion about how best to serve Durham. If every major trunk route was 4 tracks throughout this wouldn't be as much as a problem, but they aren't and there has to be a compromise as a result.