What changes should happen in the Manchester area once Ordsall Chord opens?

[Chapeltom]

Oh what a surprise, a thread about the Ordsall Chord and changes to services in the Manchester area becomes a thread about the Mid Cheshire Line. I was wondering when that would crop up!

Anyway, being realistic with regards to my own lines. Not that I ought to have that much say considering in six weeks I won't be using British trains for a LONG time.

The Buxton Line should go to two trains per hour, and the service should as be suggested be a semi fast. Calls at Whaley Bridge, New Mills Newtown and Disley and then onwards. Yes I'm suggesting my own station should not get a second hourly service, as quite frankly doesn't need to get one! Chapel en le Frith is a long way out of Chapel, and I know Chapel commuters/some leisure users prefer Chinley which (despite the worse weekday service) gets 2.5 times as many passengers per year despite being 5 times smaller population wise. That tells you everything, oh and the huge season-ticket price differences too!

The affected stations not going 2tph would be Dove Holes (barely warrants a service), Chapel (mentioned above), Furness Vale (on the 199 bus route and New Mills Newtown is a 20 min walk along the canal if that!) and Middlewood (like Dove gets 1tp2h in the day anyway).

The Hope Valley Line should go hourly, and infrastructure improvements to allow that to happen should be a priority - certainly for travel in this area. I think this would have to be an extension of the existing New Mills Central terminating service.

 

[Philip]

I would leave the Mid-Cheshire line as it is seeing as it appears the Southport service won't even go into Piccadilly never mind the Airport. There are bigger priorities in the area than increasing frequency on the Mid-Cheshire line, at best I would double up a few existing trains not create new ones. Just to throw a spanner in the works, how about scrapping any plans for another Mid-Cheshire service and add a 4th London service to take up the path? By the time anything happens it will be 2018 thus 10 years on from the creation of VHF, perhaps by that time Virgin or whoever will be looking to enhance the service even more?

 

[Starmill]

I for one would be quite hostile to the loss of the Airport stop for the Southport service as it would leave Chorley, Bolton and Salford Crescent with only 1tph to the Airport.

I should point out that it wouldn't affect Chorley, which currently only has 1tph to Manchester Airport anyway...

But yes. It would mean the reduction to 1 Airport train an hour for Salford Crescent and Bolton plus the loss of all direct Airport trains for Westhoughton, Hindley, Burscough and Southport. In time gone by, Wigan too but as that link is now catered for, do these 4 places warrant a link more than Warrington and stations to Chester and North Wales? Difficult to say.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Buxton Line should go to two trains per hour, and the service should as be suggested be a semi fast. Calls at Whaley Bridge, New Mills Newtown and Disley and then onwards. Yes I'm suggesting my own station should not get a second hourly service, as quite frankly doesn't need to get one! Chapel en le Frith is a long way out of Chapel, and I know Chapel commuters/some leisure users prefer Chinley which (despite the worse weekday service) gets 2.5 times as many passengers per year despite being 5 times smaller population wise. That tells you everything, oh and the huge season-ticket price differences too!

Seriously!? Wow! I'm not that familiar with the line, but I'm shocked that Chapel-en-le-Frith is, in your opinion, further down the list than Whaley Bridge?

Dove Holes and Middlewood are a bit of a waste of time I agree, and I'm always surprised at the number of people who use Newtown, but I find it really hard to believe a semi-fast would stop at Whaley Bridge and not Chapel.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But yes. It would mean the reduction to 1 Airport train an hour for Salford Crescent and Bolton plus the loss of all direct Airport trains for Westhoughton, Hindley, Burscough and Southport. In time gone by, Wigan too but as that link is now catered for, do these 4 places warrant a link more than Warrington and stations to Chester and North Wales? Difficult to say.

Of the four stations to which you allude, would you not agree that Southport by its very nature is something of a "different kettle-of-fish" than the other three named stations of Westhoughton, Hindley and Burscough ?

 

[Starmill]

Of the four stations to which you allude, would you not agree that Southport by its very nature is something of a "different kettle-of-fish" than the other three named stations of Westhoughton, Hindley and Burscough ?

Assuming I have not missed out anywhere that will lose service, yes I agree that Southport is the place where people are most likely to be aggrieved at the loss of any direct Airport services.

Let's not forget people that the reason Glasgow Airport's rail link failed the first time round was because they couldn't get a large enough range of destinations with direct services to it. Manchester Airport's range of direct trains has expanded since it opened, so it's a shame to lose somewhere as close as Southport. Darlington, Durham and Newcastle were knocked off the regular destinations not too long back also. But Warrington and Chester could be very well-used additions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Assuming I have not missed out anywhere that will lose service, yes I agree that Southport is the place where people are most likely to be aggrieved at the loss of any direct Airport services.

Let's not forget people that the reason Glasgow Airport's rail link failed the first time round was because they couldn't get a large enough range of destinations with direct services to it. Manchester Airport's range of direct trains has expanded since it opened, so it's a shame to lose somewhere as close as Southport. Darlington, Durham and Newcastle were knocked off the regular destinations not too long back also. But Warrington and Chester could be very well-used additions.

Warrington and Chester are what I would refer to as large local catchment area settlements that Manchester Airport (the airport...not the railway station) should welcome by the provision of direct rail services. I would also add some of the larger rail-served North-Wales coastal settlements to that list.

Despite the agreed reinstatement of a few of the former rail services offered by First TPE, the matter of the longer distance Darlington, Durham and Newcastle settlements see them now mainly having to use alternative modes of transport to access the number of flight destinations that Manchester Airport offer, which are not offered by other airports that serve the north-east of England.

 

[Philip]

But yes. It would mean the reduction to 1 Airport train an hour for Salford Crescent and Bolton plus the loss of all direct Airport trains for Westhoughton, Hindley, Burscough and Southport. In time gone by, Wigan too but as that link is now catered for, do these 4 places warrant a link more than Warrington and stations to Chester and North Wales? Difficult to say.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Those stations would benefit from an hourly Airport service I agree, but if we're looking at cutting back a service in order to make room for a new one then the first one I'd be looking at is the second North TPE service currently working to M'cr Airport from York; and currently scheduled to remain so in the Northern hub plans. There are potential operations difficulties to consider about terminating a service at Piccadilly but do Leeds and York really need two trains per hour? Liverpool and Sheffield both only have one train per hour.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh what a surprise, a thread about the Ordsall Chord and changes to services in the Manchester area becomes a thread about the Mid Cheshire Line. I was wondering when that would crop up!

For the record I mentioned both the Buxton line and Hope Valley lines in the original post but it's taken over 30 posts before someone else has come along and commented on those.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would leave the Mid-Cheshire line as it is seeing as it appears the Southport service won't even go into Piccadilly never mind the Airport. There are bigger priorities in the area than increasing frequency on the Mid-Cheshire line, at best I would double up a few existing trains not create new ones. Just to throw a spanner in the works, how about scrapping any plans for another Mid-Cheshire service and add a 4th London service to take up the path? By the time anything happens it will be 2018 thus 10 years on from the creation of VHF, perhaps by that time Virgin or whoever will be looking to enhance the service even more?

I don't see how yet another London service would be of benefit or even work now that Network Rail have given approval for the spare WCML path to be used to provide a 2 hourly Leeds-Huddersfield-Victoria-Warrington-London service interworked with a 2 hourly Blackpool-Warrington-London service from December 2018.

Also don't forget many off-peak London trains from Manchester are much quieter than off-peak London trains from Liverpool and Glasgow. How can 4tph to Manchester be higher priority than 2tph to Liverpool or Glasgow based on current loadings?

With regards to the Mid-Cheshire line a lot of London tickets get sold at Knutsford, Hale and Altrincham ticket offices but quite often with origins of Wilmslow or Crewe. An enhanced local service with better rolling stock should help reduce the number of people railheading.

A quarter hourly service to London would mean less flexibility for Northern services, which may result in them needing more units to run the same level of service and who would pay for that?

Your post seems to be of the attitude - if Southport will see a negative implication as a result of the electrification program then no other diesel route should have any improvements. Of course, Knutsford, Hale and Northwich have higher patronage with 1tph than some Southport line stations have with 2tph so maybe if the Mid-Cheshire line can't have 2tph to Manchester than the Southport line should be cut back to 1tph at most stations.

 

[The Planner]

Dft always wanted a 4th Manchester service after VHF, and as for the December 18 plans, I would take them with a massive pinch of salt until it is decided how a HS2 works Euston is going to pan out.

 

[rick9525]

I would hope Hadfield trains are given a faster running time. It was mentioned a good while back, after electrification, that there would be an all stations (except Ardwick) to Stalybridge which would then allow for Hadfield trains to potentially run non stop after Guide Bridge into Piccadilly. On a separate note a speed increase around the painfully slow Dinting Triangle would also help matters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Your post seems to be of the attitude - if Southport will see a negative implication as a result of the electrification program then no other diesel route should have any improvements. Of course, Knutsford, Hale and Northwich have higher patronage with 1tph than some Southport line stations have with 2tph so maybe if the Mid-Cheshire line can't have 2tph to Manchester than the Southport line should be cut back to 1tph at most stations.

Looking at the latest available figures, I find the following information...
0.454 million....Knutsford
2.496 million....Southport

I do hope that your reference to "the Southport line" does not apply to the service provision offered by the Liverpool to Southport service when you state "a cut back to 1tph"...:roll:

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Those stations would benefit from an hourly Airport service I agree, but if we're looking at cutting back a service in order to make room for a new one then the first one I'd be looking at is the second North TPE service currently working to M'cr Airport from York; and currently scheduled to remain so in the Northern hub plans. There are potential operations difficulties to consider about terminating a service at Piccadilly but do Leeds and York really need two trains per hour? Liverpool and Sheffield both only have one train per hour.

The requirement for the Northern Hub for services to the Airport was for "direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…(p45 of this document)

The gap analysis between this requirement and the then current timetable was that "The Calder Valley, Chester and the CLC have no direct service to Manchester Airport, and the corridor to the south has only got one if the local service from Crewe is counted as sufficient."

The model timetable (p85) provided to display that the requirements could be met by the Northern Hub project presented the following services to Manchester Airport

Ten tph from Manchester and beyond (eight fast, two stopping), two tph from Crewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

Of course this is not set in stone and there are other possible combinations which meet the requirements, but yes there was a definite requirement for Leeds and York to get at least 2tph while the other 7 corridors would get a minimum of 1tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would leave the Mid-Cheshire line as it is seeing as it appears the Southport service won't even go into Piccadilly never mind the Airport.

Is this true about the Southport service? This would mean that this line would not only no longer meet the Northern Hub requirement for connectivity to the Airport described in my last post, but also no longer running it to Piccadilly would mean it longer meet the five other requirements for connectivity (too long to be posted here but can be found on p 44 of the Technical Study linked to in my last post).

At the time of writing the report the only line that failed to meet the other connectivity requirements was the Calder Valley line (no bias here ) and it failed every one of them. Running a Calder Valley service through to Piccadilly meant that these other requirements were satisfied. This was the second reason (out of two) for getting budgetary approval for the Ordsall Chord.

I don't know know about the rail industry but in the commercial world getting approval for a £400m project that promises improved connectivity as a major feature and then delivering a solution that actually reduces connectivity would be seen as a pretty major disaster.

 

[northwichcat]

Looking at the latest available figures, I find the following information...
0.454 million....Knutsford
2.496 million....Southport

I do hope that your reference to "the Southport line" does not apply to the service provision offered by the Liverpool to Southport service when you state "a cut back to 1tph"...:roll:

I think you mis-read my post. I said "some Southport line stations with 2tph" Obviously Southport has significantly more than 2tph if you include Liverpool services as well as Manchester services!

Burscough Bridge only has 210,842 journeys per annum so less than half of what Knutsford gets with half the frequency, while Parbold gets 112,864 so slightly more than half of what Northwich gets with half the frequency.

If you want to compare Southport station with a Mid-Cheshire line station then maybe you should compare it with Chester which gets 3 million journeys per annum plus 0.8 million interchanges, rather than Knutsford?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The requirement for the Northern Hub for services to the Airport was for "direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…(p45 of this document)

...

Of course this is not set in stone and there are other possible combinations which meet the requirements

Note that document entitled 'Manchester Hub' pre-dates electrification announcements. Later publications by Network Rail recommend simply reviewing Airport services to meet current demand. The more recent West Coast RUS recommended Manchester Airport to Derby instead of Manchester Airport to Stoke, while the HLOS published by DfT suggests no regular direct Newcastle services from Manchester Airport, with Newcastle getting a half-hourly electric service to Liverpool instead.

Is this true about the Southport service? This would mean that this line would not only no longer meet the Northern Hub requirement for connectivity to the Airport described in my last post, but also no longer running it to Piccadilly would mean it longer meet the five other requirements for connectivity (too long to be posted here but can be found on p 44 of the Technical Study linked to in my last post).

Don't forget Victoria will have direct services to the Airport, as will Wigan and Salford Crescent so getting between Southport and the Airport won't be too difficult whatever happens. The connections made more difficult will be from Southport to stations south of Stockport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would hope Hadfield trains are given a faster running time. It was mentioned a good while back, after electrification, that there would be an all stations (except Ardwick) to Stalybridge which would then allow for Hadfield trains to potentially run non stop after Guide Bridge into Piccadilly. On a separate note a speed increase around the painfully slow Dinting Triangle would also help matters.

Not the case. Although, you will be able to get direct services to Huddersfield, Leeds Selby and Hull from Guide Bridge which will prevent some passengers needing to double back.

The Secretary of State has recently instructed us to commence discussions with NR to secure a Track Access Contract from the end of our existing contract in 2016 until 2026. We are required to include within this application our existing framework of right, with the addition, on the core Transpennine route, of the 6th train in each hour required to deliver the Northern ITSS.
...
Manchester Piccadilly to Huddersfield via Guide Bridge & Diggle
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite

Manchester Piccadilly Hull via Guide Bridge & Diggle (service 1)
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Mossley, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, Dewsbury,
Leeds, Selby, Brough

Manchester Piccadilly Hull via Guide Bridge & Diggle (service 2)
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Greenfield, Marsden, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, South Milford, Selby, Brough

(The other services mentioned go via Victoria/Oxford Road.)

 

[Hebden Bridger]

Note that document entitled 'Manchester Hub' pre-dates electrification announcements. Later publications by Network Rail recommend simply reviewing Airport services to meet current demand. The more recent West Coast RUS recommended Manchester Airport to Derby instead of Manchester Airport to Stoke, while the HLOS published by DfT suggests no regular direct Newcastle services from Manchester Airport, with Newcastle getting a half-hourly electric service to Liverpool instead.

The document assumes the electrification of at least the Blackpool and Liverpool routes. None of these changes to Airport services (not knowing the output of the review) mean breaching the requirements of the Northern Hub project that I posted. The withdrawal of the Southport/Piccadilly/Airport service certainly would in a very major way.

I don't want to teach sucking eggs here, but is normal engineering practice for those paying for a project (in this case the taxpayer) to issue a set of requirements and the supplier (Network Rail) to issue a document specifying how their solution meets their client's requirements. This "Manchester Hub" document containing a compliance matrix of how Network Rails solution meets the requirements certainly looks the part. This document would normally form part of the contract to define what the customer are getting for their money, then the requirements tracked throughout the project using requirements management processes and any change in either the client's requirements or the suppliers ability to deliver them handled using contract change processes.

As you imply the "Manchester Hub" document is out of date is there a document that shows the current status of progress against these requirements available to the interested tax payer?

 

[northwichcat]

The document assumes the electrification of at least the Blackpool and Liverpool routes. None of these changes to Airport services (not knowing the output of the review) mean breaching the requirements of the Northern Hub project that I posted. The withdrawal of the Southport/Piccadilly/Airport service certainly would in a very major way.

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. You posted a list of proposed Airport services as part of the 'Manchester Hub' which didn't include a Southport-Airport service and you're also saying Southport-Airport was a key part of the 'Northern Hub.'

As you imply the "Manchester Hub" document is out of date is there a document that shows the current status of progress against these requirements available to the interested tax payer?

Anything which says 'Manchester Hub' is out-of-date as it was renamed 'Northern Hub' before Manchester-York and Bolton-Wigan electrification was announced.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/northern-hub/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3643/illustrative-options.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/road-and-rail-projects-to-boost-local-and-regional-transport--2

If you put the pieces together:

Peak train lengthening with revised diesel and electric train formations; Wigan – Kirby becomes self-contained diesel service.

The railway line between Wigan (North Western Station) and Bolton (Lostock Junction) will be electrified, at an estimated cost of £37 million and targeted for completion by 2017. This will enable the conversion of the busy Wigan to Manchester Victoria services and Wigan to Manchester Airport services from older Pacer diesel trains to more modern and higher capacity electric trains.

Services from Manchester Airport revised to match current patterns of demand

It means all Wigan-Bolton-Manchester services will be electric services and cannot originate at Southport.

They'll be a diesel Victoria-Atherton-Wigan service which no longer continues to Kirby, which could instead be extended to Southport.

As a variation on the proposals, if Southport-Piccadilly is so important why not run:
* Hourly Manchester Airport to Blackpool via Bolton and Wigan (interworked with Scottish services to give Wigan a roughly half-hourly service to and from the Airport.)
* Victoria-Preston via Chorley every 20 minutes with hourly extension to Blackpool
* Hourly Victoria-Southport via Atherton service
* Hourly Chester/Buxton-Southport via Stockport and Atherton service
* Hourly Kirby-Wigan service

Instead of current:
* Hourly Manchester Airport to Blackpool via Bolton and Chorley
* Hourly Victoria to Blackpool via Chorley
* Hourly Hazel Grove to Preston via Chorley
* Hourly Victoria to Southport via Atherton
* Hourly Manchester Airport to Southport via Bolton and Wigan
* Hourly Victoria to Kirby via Atherton

(Electric services in green, diesel services in navy)

Apart from one extra path between Wigan and Preston it would require the same number of paths and provide the same number of services, although some places would see a different final destination of the service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at the latest available figures, I find the following information...
0.454 million....Knutsford
2.496 million....Southport

With the complaints posted about Southport losing it's Piccadilly service I looked to see if there were any figures available for how many people travel to Oxford Road, Piccadilly and the Airport from Southport.

I couldn't find such figures. However, in looking I found 2012 figures for the number of journeys to central Manchester from stations on the Southport line which breaks down as:

Southport 121,000
Meols Cop 26,000
Bescar Lane 1,000
New Lane under 500
Burscough Bridge 71,000
Hoscar under 500
Parbold 44,000
Appley Bridge 80,000
Gathurst 39,000

Compared to the Mid-Cheshire line:

Chester 344,000
Mouldsworth 4,000
Delamere 5,000
Cuddington 14,000
Greenbank 30,000
Northwich 60,000
Lostock Gralam Not included
Plumley Not included
Knutsford 119,000
Mobberley 6,000
Ashley 2,000
Hale 30,000
Altrincham 179,000
Navigation Road 14,000

Source: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improv...anning-process/market-studies/regional-urban/

Now when I started this thread I certainly wasn't expecting a Mid-Cheshire vs Southport debate for a path in to Piccadilly. However, noting that passenger numbers would likely grow at Mid-Cheshire line stations if it had the same level of frequency to Manchester as the Southport line I think Southport line passengers should consider themselves very lucky they have 2 direct services per hour to Manchester and that they will continue to do so even if they lose their direct Airport service.

 

[Hebden Bridger]

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. You posted a list of proposed Airport services as part of the 'Manchester Hub' which didn't include a Southport-Airport service and you're also saying Southport-Airport was a key part of the 'Northern Hub.' .

I'm confused too. My initial post mentioned only the Northern Hub and most definitely did include a Southport-Airport service. While this was only an example timetable it did contain the 8 principal corridors for which Network Rail were required to provide Airport services (Leeds (min 2tph), Preston, Liverpool, Crewe, Sheffield, Southport, Chester and Calder Valley(the rest a minimum of 1tph)).

The requirement for the Northern Hub for services to the Airport was for "direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…(p45 of this document)

The gap analysis between this requirement and the then current timetable was that "The Calder Valley, Chester and the CLC have no direct service to Manchester Airport, and the corridor to the south has only got one if the local service from Crewe is counted as sufficient."

The model timetable (p85) provided to display that the requirements could be met by the Northern Hub project presented the following services to Manchester Airport

Ten tph from Manchester and beyond (eight fast, two stopping), two tph from Crewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from Newcastle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and one from Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax

Of course this is not set in stone and there are other possible combinations which meet the requirements, but yes there was a definite requirement for Leeds and York to get at least 2tph while the other 7 corridors would get a minimum of 1tph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is this true about the Southport service? This would mean that this line would not only no longer meet the Northern Hub requirement for connectivity to the Airport described in my last post, but also no longer running it to Piccadilly would mean it longer meet the five other requirements for connectivity (too long to be posted here but can be found on p 44 of the Technical Study linked to in my last post).

At the time of writing the report the only line that failed to meet the other connectivity requirements was the Calder Valley line (no bias here ) and it failed every one of them. Running a Calder Valley service through to Piccadilly meant that these other requirements were satisfied. This was the second reason (out of two) for getting budgetary approval for the Ordsall Chord.

I don't know know about the rail industry but in the commercial world getting approval for a £400m project that promises improved connectivity as a major feature and then delivering a solution that actually reduces connectivity would be seen as a pretty major disaster.

Anything which says 'Manchester Hub' is out-of-date as it was renamed 'Northern Hub' before Manchester-York and Bolton-Wigan electrification was announced.

Yes the document I linked too was entitled Manchester Hub, but the change of name of a project does not invalidate documents and especially does not render user requirements contained within obsolete. I'm afraid the rest of your post does make much sense to me as a rail user because its low level implementation detail.

Network Rail promised in this document to meet a whole raft of user requirements for connectivity in order to obtain the funding. These are specified in p44-45 of the document. Their technical solution to meet these requirements was simply to run trains from each of eight principal corridors (Leeds, Preston, Liverpool, Crewe, Sheffield, Southport, Chester and Calder Valley) to Piccadilly (satisfying most of the requirements) and to Manchester Airport (meeting the final requirement).

Any backtracking from this would (at least in most industries) be likely to incur severe contractual penalties.

 

[driver_m]

To reply to jcollins. You say you don't follow what I posted. You were the one who mentioned a Hull to liverpool via Warrington service. That would have to go across ardwick. The whole point of the Ordsall curve is to get rid of those crossover moves that stitch up piccadilly station. That is what I meant, that would not work.

The next point. Is the mid Cheshire line the line through Knutsford and Delamere? That is the 'woodland and a few small towns line' that I was referring to, it is not the route through Warrington bank quay. Correct? There is no way that line deserves another service over an additional Liverpool, Preston/Blackpool or even Southport service. The current thinking now is to get our biggest cities better connected and for me Liverpool and Preston would get the paths every time.

 

[Greybeard33]

I would hope Hadfield trains are given a faster running time. It was mentioned a good while back, after electrification, that there would be an all stations (except Ardwick) to Stalybridge which would then allow for Hadfield trains to potentially run non stop after Guide Bridge into Piccadilly. On a separate note a speed increase around the painfully slow Dinting Triangle would also help matters.

Not the case. Although, you will be able to get direct services to Huddersfield, Leeds Selby and Hull from Guide Bridge which will prevent some passengers needing to double back.

In fact the NR Urban Market Study, the "recommendations for conditional outputs" of which jcollins quoted in Post #7 in support of increased frequency on the Mid-Cheshire line, also has this to say about the Hadfield line:

D.1.3.4 Recommendations for conditional outputs:
• There may be opportunities to improve journey times through
infrastructure improvements and / or changed stopping
patterns.
• Increase frequency to four trains per hour from stations closer to
Manchester in the peak with corresponding improvements in the
off-peak.
• There is a trade-off between running four services per hour (two
from Glossop and two from Hadfield) and running an indirect
service that provides a direct connection between Glossop and
Hadfield.
• Increase capacity to meet demand through lengthening or
increased frequency in situations where frequency
improvements are more affordable and demonstrate better
value for money.

The document also suggests increased off-peak frequency from Marple/Rose Hill to Piccadilly. However, the "conditional outputs" are defined as "long term aspirations for 2043", so their relevance to the time frame of this thread is questionable!

Now when I started this thread I certainly wasn't expecting a Mid-Cheshire vs Southport debate for a path in to Piccadilly. However, noting that passenger numbers would likely grow at Mid-Cheshire line stations if it had the same level of frequency to Manchester as the Southport line I think Southport line passengers should consider themselves very lucky they have 2 direct services per hour to Manchester and that they will continue to do so even if they lose their direct Airport service.

The Mid-Cheshire and Southport services cannot possibly be in competition for a path into Piccadilly, since they come from opposite directions! In fact these services could be joined at Piccadilly, as they already are on Sundays, if the Southport service no longer continues to the Airport.

 

[northwichcat]

To reply to jcollins. You say you don't follow what I posted. You were the one who mentioned a Hull to liverpool via Warrington service. That would have to go across ardwick. The whole point of the Ordsall curve is to get rid of those crossover moves that stitch up piccadilly station. That is what I meant, that would not work.

DfT have asked TPE to apply for access rights to run 2tph between Piccadilly and Hull via Guide Bridge and also to apply for a path on behalf of Northern to run a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper. So there will likely be 3 services an hour between Piccadilly and Huddersfield via Ardwick post-electrification. (The presumption is the 6tph on North TPE can start as soon as the Ordsall Chord opens but the Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper can only start after electrification due to electric trains accelerating faster than diesel ones meaning an extra path can be made available.)

The Ordsall Chord will free up paths as York-Airport services will run via Victoria and the Ordsall Chord so won't take up paths reversing at Piccadilly.

The next point. Is the mid Cheshire line the line through Knutsford and Delamere? That is the 'woodland and a few small towns line' that I was referring to, it is not the route through Warrington bank quay. Correct? There is no way that line deserves another service over an additional Liverpool, Preston/Blackpool or even Southport service. The current thinking now is to get our biggest cities better connected and for me Liverpool and Preston would get the paths every time.

You were arguing an additional Mid-Cheshire service would take the path of the Southport-Airport service which is incorrect as no reduction in service between the Airport and Piccadilly is proposed. If the Southport service loses it's path to the Airport then a new Airport service will take it's place e.g. Llandudno-Airport instead of Southport-Airport. Hence, why I said about Chester, Warrington and Llandudno not Knutsford, Altrincham and Northwich.

Also you're very wrong about the Southport line deserving 3tph to Manchester ahead of the Mid-Cheshire line getting 2tph. Look at the facts in my post from 14:03 yesterday, the stations between Southport and Gathurst generate a total of around 382,000 journeys to Manchester per annum with 2tph at the busiest stations, while the stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Rd generate over 462,000 journeys to Manchester per annum with 1tph at the busiest stations. Just because Wigan deserves a high frequency to Manchester doesn't mean the lightly used stations between Wigan and Southport deserve 2tph to Manchester never mind 3tph.

 

[nr758123]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quote:
Originally Posted by TPE
The Secretary of State has recently instructed us to commence discussions with NR to secure a Track Access Contract from the end of our existing contract in 2016 until 2026. We are required to include within this application our existing framework of right, with the addition, on the core Transpennine route, of the 6th train in each hour required to deliver the Northern ITSS.
...
Manchester Piccadilly to Huddersfield via Guide Bridge & Diggle
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite

Manchester Piccadilly Hull via Guide Bridge & Diggle (service 1)
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Mossley, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield, Dewsbury,
Leeds, Selby, Brough

Manchester Piccadilly Hull via Guide Bridge & Diggle (service 2)
Proposed peak time calling pattern: Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Greenfield, Marsden, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, South Milford, Selby, Brough

(The other services mentioned go via Victoria/Oxford Road.)

What is the source and date of this, please?

 

[swt_passenger]

What is the source and date of this, please?

It's a response written by TPE to Network Rail's consultation about the Alliance proposals for Euston services, available on ORR's track access consultation page here:

http://orr.gov.uk/consultations/acc...-applications/new-contracts-section-17-and-18

The above link lists all the responses and individual NR replies to them, of which the latest TPE response is this one, sent on July 10th:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/14211/s17-gnwr-fktpe-response.pdf

 

[northwichcat]

I'm confused too. My initial post mentioned only the Northern Hub and most definitely did include a Southport-Airport service. While this was only an example timetable it did contain the 8 principal corridors for which Network Rail were required to provide Airport services (Leeds (min 2tph), Preston, Liverpool, Crewe, Sheffield, Southport, Chester and Calder Valley(the rest a minimum of 1tph)).

I must have missed it when looking through.

Yes the document I linked too was entitled Manchester Hub, but the change of name of a project does not invalidate documents and especially does not render user requirements contained within obsolete.

However, it does where a proposal is superseded by a newer proposal.

Just looking at the proposals given in that document it doesn't even include an express Wigan-Manchester service in the off-peak period, which TPE now provide.

It also talks about journey time improvements between Manchester Airport and Middlesbrough, yet the more recent HLOS published assumes electric services from Manchester Airport will only go as far as York: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3643/illustrative-options.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The document also suggests increased off-peak frequency from Marple/Rose Hill to Piccadilly. However, the "conditional outputs" are defined as "long term aspirations for 2043", so their relevance to the time frame of this thread is questionable!

I think the 30 years referred to probably means between April 2014 and April 2044 given how Network Rail define control periods. It's probably 30 years so that they can decide on rolling stock strategy and future electrification schemes. There's a lot of talk about increased frequencies and train lengths in the Manchester area which coincide with what documents have said/recommended for CP5, however, I imagine some of the suggestions about rolling stock improvements probably won't occur until the Sprinters start being withdrawn, which isn't set to happen before CP6.

 

[driver_m]

DfT have asked TPE to apply for access rights to run 2tph between Piccadilly and Hull via Guide Bridge and also to apply for a path on behalf of Northern to run a Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper. So there will likely be 3 services an hour between Piccadilly and Huddersfield via Ardwick post-electrification. (The presumption is the 6tph on North TPE can start as soon as the Ordsall Chord opens but the Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper can only start after electrification due to electric trains accelerating faster than diesel ones meaning an extra path can be made available.)

The Ordsall Chord will free up paths as York-Airport services will run via Victoria and the Ordsall Chord so won't take up paths reversing at Piccadilly.



You were arguing an additional Mid-Cheshire service would take the path of the Southport-Airport service which is incorrect as no reduction in service between the Airport and Piccadilly is proposed. If the Southport service loses it's path to the Airport then a new Airport service will take it's place e.g. Llandudno-Airport instead of Southport-Airport. Hence, why I said about Chester, Warrington and Llandudno not Knutsford, Altrincham and Northwich.

Also you're very wrong about the Southport line deserving 3tph to Manchester ahead of the Mid-Cheshire line getting 2tph. Look at the facts in my post from 14:03 yesterday, the stations between Southport and Gathurst generate a total of around 382,000 journeys to Manchester per annum with 2tph at the busiest stations, while the stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Rd generate over 462,000 journeys to Manchester per annum with 1tph at the busiest stations. Just because Wigan deserves a high frequency to Manchester doesn't mean the lightly used stations between Wigan and Southport deserve 2tph to Manchester never mind 3tph.

If you think I'm wrong just have a look at 13/14 at piccadilly in the peaks for any train from Bolton in the morning or back in the evening. If you lived there you'd change your tune. Not got anything against your line, but you asked the question and I'm giving you reasons why I disagree. The main part of my argument is that Bolton (and Liverpool) needs the increase in service. Southport being a useful terminating point. There's bigger towns in the north west that don't even have a train service to piccadilly ie Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, St Helens (from central), Ellesmere Port, Birkenhead. Probably others too that I've not mentioned. (yes I'm aware of the trams if some pedant wants to pick holes in my argument!)

 

[northwichcat]

If you think I'm wrong just have a look at 13/14 at piccadilly in the peaks for any train from Bolton in the morning or back in the evening. If you lived there you'd change your tune. Not got anything against your line, but you asked the question and I'm giving you reasons why I disagree.

Oh dear! Southport services will not serve Bolton once Bolton-Wigan is electrified, so any talk about increased capacity for Bolton will have 0% relevance to Southport services. So all that fuss because you didn't bother reading earlier posts properly!

 

[cle]

Will many local trains receive improvements? Strikes me as being wholly focused on regional ones, but Manchester suburban services are dire compared to Liverpool or Glasgow, and there was way too many buses everywhere. What's proposed in this regard?

Rather than 8tph fast and 2tph slow from the airport, could this not be 10tph with one intermediate stop, providing 2tph to each (but no local journeys) - or 4tph fast, and 6tph stopping twice? Or similar - but providing a good local service in addition to fast TPE and other regional services.

 

[northwichcat]

Will many local trains receive improvements? Strikes me as being wholly focused on regional ones, but Manchester suburban services are dire compared to Liverpool or Glasgow, and there was way too many buses everywhere. What's proposed in this regard?

Proposals that have come up include:
* 2tph to Buxton - possibly one an extension of the Hazel Grove service
* 2tph on the Mid-Cheshire line (at least between Greenbank and Stockport)
* The new Manchester - Blackburn via Burnley service
* Extra off-peak services on the Hope Valley line (at least between Manchester and Chinley.)
* 2tph between Manchester Airport and Crewe
* 2tph at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield
* Additional services to Wigan, Stalybridge and Rochdale. (Possibly the TPE service to Wigan counts as the additional service already.)

 

[cle]

It's the E/SE Manchester services which I think are particularly bad. The Marples and Sheffield locals.

And the CLC lines as well, which are becoming less 'inter city' in nature and could support more local trains through Urmston etc... especially as some paths might technically be available with Liverpool - TPE services running via Victoria.

 

[northwichcat]

The Marples and Sheffield locals.

Agree on the Sheffield locals but the Marples? Many of them can't even get a healthy loading on a 2 car Pacer in the off-peak period.

 

[cle]

Agree on the Sheffield locals but the Marples? Many of them can't even get a healthy loading on a 2 car Pacer in the off-peak period.

Perhaps not the final stations, but along the whole route to create more of a proper turn up and go network. Plus more pleasant environments around stations - which can be desolate and dodgy in some cases.
I suspect there is a lot of suppressed demand in the whole conurbation, and aiming for 4tph on all routes would have a great effect on traffic (bus and car). The London Overground effect, really.

And the Met has done the same thing with each extension, which demonstrates that 'mass transit' is workable and will be used in GM.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yes, I have always thought the main beneficiaries will be Virgin, Cross Country & suburban trains to/from points to the south terminating at Piccadilly which will no longer be disrupted by the conflicting TPE movements.

The congestion, conflicting paths and consequent slow running and unreliability then shift to the Ordsall triangle/Windsor Bridge area where there will a large number of junctions in very close proximity, with every possible combination of routes in intensive use. What are the plans for the signalling and overlaps in this area? It seems short sighted not to have designed some form of grade separation here, but presumably it is all being done on the cheap and to a minimalist spec.

Yes - Ordsall Lane Jcn & Castlefield Jcn are already bottlenecks - adding a new level junction for the Ordsall curve, and with additional trains each hour - it is going to make matters worse.