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

[The Planner]

Only if things go wrong.

 

[Greybeard33]

If Hull isn't electrified then the diesel North TPE service to Hull could extend to Liverpool via Warrington.

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.

Have you seen any official proposal to link a Piccadilly-Hull service with a Liverpool-Piccadilly via Warrington Central service, post-Chord? As driver_m said, that would violate Hub principles.

The main purpose of the Chord is to eliminate reversals across Piccadilly throat. North TPE services to Liverpool should be routed via Victoria and the Chat Moss. North TPE services to Piccadilly should either terminate in the low-numbered bays or be routed via Victoria and the Chord to the Airport. Liverpool-Piccadilly services should either be linked to South TPE or terminate at the Airport.

Surely better to have diesels from Hull terminating at Piccadilly than to lose some of the extra paths into Piccadilly from the south?

 

[driver_m]

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!

Says who? Just because wires go up doesn't mean diesels stop running. Otherwise why do I regularly drive 221's under them? The service out of Picc is going to be completely recast anyway because of various proposals. XC will likely run down the WCML to M Keynes and then access the East-West when that opens, but I can't see any loss of Brum services, if anything Norton Bridge rebuilding allows another Man-B'ham path. We have been mentioned as having a 4th London Service. There is the demand for extra Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool services, services to various places going towards Bolton and beyond. I'm sure that the Southport MP will no doubt kick off too if Bolton loses its Southport services, especially seeing as it is regularly rammed in summer.

Plans change and nothing is concrete. Your own service regularly causes delays crossing from up slow to up slow at Slade Lane and again at Edgeley to other services if it is out of path. It would have more chance if Stockport had some kind of turnback platform on the western side. Any train crossing from one set of lines at Picc to another ie Eastern-Fast potentially causes reactionary delay and often does, particularly late running TPE's to from the airport to the North East.

I've read exactly what you said, I just don't agree with you. There are other places wanting improved services which I think will get the paths.

 

[northwichcat]

Have you seen any official proposal to link a Piccadilly-Hull service with a Liverpool-Piccadilly via Warrington Central service, post-Chord? As driver_m said, that would violate Hub principles.

No officially under the HLOS Liverpool-Warrington-Sheffield is to be half-hourly. However, as the TPE consultation document suggested 3tph is a possibility between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport, that doesn't fit in with a half-hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service, so I suggested sending a Liverpool service to Hull instead of the proposed Sheffield if 3tph to Sheffield goes ahead, so that neither Liverpool or Sheffield have unevenly spaced intervals between services to Manchester. If that doesn't work then maybe you could send a Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly semi-fast to the Airport or even Buxton or Chester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Says who? Just because wires go up doesn't mean diesels stop running.

DfT. I posted the links earlier in this thread where DfT say there would be an electric Wigan-Bolton-Piccadilly instead of the existing Pacer service and that Kirby-Wigan will be a shuttle service, so that leaves 3 options for Southport:
1. A Southport-Wigan shuttle and a separate Wigan-Victoria service which no longer starts from Kirby.
2. The two services in option 1 joined up.
3. Southport-Piccadilly to remain - unlikely as that would need an additional path between Deansgate and Piccadilly which is unlikely to be available.

I was originally skeptical that the Southport revisions would happen just because of Wigan-Bolton electrification. However, Watcherzero pointed me to where that's officially documented a few months ago.

Otherwise why do I regularly drive 221's under them?

Voyagers are a complete different scenario. Virgin ordered a lot of Voyagers because they wanted the option to divert on to non-electrified lines. Northern need extra capacity on diesel routes and aren't getting any additional diesel trains, so diesel trains have to be released from existing services, the less that happens the less extra capacity Northern can create.

I've read exactly what you said, I just don't agree with you. There are other places wanting improved services which I think will get the paths.

You were arguing for an additional Southport-Manchester service ahead of an additional Mid-Cheshire service when Southport already has double the frequency of the Mid-Cheshire service and the stations west of Wigan produce less Manchester passengers than the stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Road. As I've said there's a significantly weaker business case for that and the Southport line is not competing with the Mid-Cheshire line for a path in to Piccadilly except in you head.

 

[Emyr]

Given that Bolton is still suffering a reduced service, could the services for Mid-Cheshire's second TPH be run from Greenbank through to Bolton platform 2 (bay)?

If there is enough time in front of other Bolton services, this could also address the lack of evening services calling at either Farnworth or Kearsley. I doubt there will be enough time for more than one call between Salford Crescent and Bolton.

 

[northwichcat]

Given that Bolton is still suffering a reduced service, could the services for Mid-Cheshire's second TPH be run from Greenbank through to Bolton platform 2 (bay)?

If there is enough time in front of other Bolton services, this could also address the lack of evening services calling at either Farnworth or Kearsley. I doubt there will be enough time for more than one call between Salford Crescent and Bolton.

Is that proposal related to your journeys between the Bolton area and the Mid-Cheshire line?

With Bolton getting wires and DMUs not plentiful I think it would make more sense to extend one of the 'South Manchester' electric services to Bolton if Bolton is to get an additional service from Piccadilly. EMUs are also supposed to accelerate faster so an EMU service maybe be able to do calls at both Farnworth and Kearsley using a path whereas a DMU in the same path can only do one call.

 

[driver_m]

No officially under the HLOS Liverpool-Warrington-Sheffield is to be half-hourly. However, as the TPE consultation document suggested 3tph is a possibility between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport, that doesn't fit in with a half-hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service, so I suggested sending a Liverpool service to Hull instead of the proposed Sheffield if 3tph to Sheffield goes ahead, so that neither Liverpool or Sheffield have unevenly spaced intervals between services to Manchester. If that doesn't work then maybe you could send a Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly semi-fast to the Airport or even Buxton or Chester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


DfT. I posted the links earlier in this thread where DfT say there would be an electric Wigan-Bolton-Piccadilly instead of the existing Pacer service and that Kirby-Wigan will be a shuttle service, so that leaves 3 options for Southport:
1. A Southport-Wigan shuttle and a separate Wigan-Victoria service which no longer starts from Kirby.
2. The two services in option 1 joined up.
3. Southport-Piccadilly to remain - unlikely as that would need an additional path between Deansgate and Piccadilly which is unlikely to be available.

I was originally skeptical that the Southport revisions would happen just because of Wigan-Bolton electrification. However, Watcherzero pointed me to where that's officially documented a few months ago.



Voyagers are a complete different scenario. Virgin ordered a lot of Voyagers because they wanted the option to divert on to non-electrified lines. Northern need extra capacity on diesel routes and aren't getting any additional diesel trains, so diesel trains have to be released from existing services, the less that happens the less extra capacity Northern can create.



You were arguing for an additional Southport-Manchester service ahead of an additional Mid-Cheshire service when Southport already has double the frequency of the Mid-Cheshire service and the stations west of Wigan produce less Manchester passengers than the stations between Mouldsworth and Navigation Road. As I've said there's a significantly weaker business case for that and the Southport line is not competing with the Mid-Cheshire line for a path in to Piccadilly except in you head.

That's funny, I thought Virgin ordered voyagers to get rid of its cross country HST's, loco's and mark 2 stock. With the grand total of 4 units for west coast services. Not the 18 sets that we have now.

I could be wrong here but didn't the same DfT plan us to run gas powered trains and other nonsense in the past? Take what they say and do as completely different things.

If you'd also bothered to read my posts you'd notice that I'm basically saying places like Bolton, Sheffield and Liverpool need those routes more than yours. Also that the pathing requirements mean you can't just stick something from the islands at picc to anywhere without affecting other services. I also just merely pointed out that Southport was a good terminating point. I could have said Blackpool or Barrow instead. (or anywhere) Sorry if that upsets you as it appears to have done.

I notice you never responded to my point about hull to liverpool via Warrington.

 

[edwin_m]

I think Manchester to Hope Valley via Stockport might end up with a half-hourly fast service and a semi-fast in one of the half-hours, making stops at say Chinley and Dore. The slow via Marple would drop into the other half-hour, but the route also needs a window for freight in most hours.

It's also possible that one of the fasts might use Dore South Curve to give a quicker journey to/from Chesterfield and beyond, in which case the semi-fast becomes part of the core Manchester-Sheffield service.

I agree Hull to Liverpool via Warrington is unlikely - any Liverpool to Hull would go via Chat Moss and Victoria to avoid conflicts at Piccadilly but the plan seems to be to send Liverpool trains to other eastern destinations.

On conflicts between Manchester and Stockport there was of course a plan to re-hand the lines between Slade Lane and Stockport from up/up/down/down to up/down/up/down, but this was abandoned when re-signalling was dropped from the WCML upgrade. One of the Network Rail planners I spoke to at the time was convinced it would help, although personally I can't help thinking it would create as many conflicts as it avoided. If it happened there might be more Buxton and Hazel Grove services terminating at Piccadilly and more likelihood of Mid-Cheshire line running through to somewhere via Oxford Road.

 

[northwichcat]

With the grand total of 4 units for west coast services. Not the 18 sets that we have now.

How are you defining West Coast services? Scotland-Birmingham was a XC route at the time the Voyagers were ordered.

If you'd also bothered to read my posts you'd notice that I'm basically saying places like Bolton, Sheffield and Liverpool need those routes more than yours.

You said

There is no way that line deserves another service over an additional Liverpool, Preston/Blackpool or even Southport service.

Explain what you meant if you didn't envisage 3tph to Southport ahead of 2tph on the Mid-Cheshire line.

You're the only person I've heard who's suggested 3tph between Manchester and Southport and haven't exactly backed up your point very well considering you expanded on that by saying Bolton needs more trains, even though Bolton trains aren't likely to continue to Southport post-Wigan to Bolton electrification.

Now are you sure Bolton needs more trains and not longer trains? Bolton has a train every 5-10 minutes to Manchester in the morning peak. Maybe there needs to be a lot more 6 carriage workings opposed to more services?

I notice you never responded to my point about hull to liverpool via Warrington.

This morning I said

No officially under the HLOS Liverpool-Warrington-Sheffield is to be half-hourly. However, as the TPE consultation document suggested 3tph is a possibility between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport, that doesn't fit in with a half-hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service, so I suggested sending a Liverpool service to Hull instead of the proposed Sheffield if 3tph to Sheffield goes ahead, so that neither Liverpool or Sheffield have unevenly spaced intervals between services to Manchester. If that doesn't work then maybe you could send a Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly semi-fast to the Airport or even Buxton or Chester.

 

[Emyr]

Is that proposal related to your journeys between the Bolton area and the Mid-Cheshire line?

This would benefit any passengers needing to connect between Victoria-terminating services and Piccadilly services.

 

[driver_m]

How are you defining West Coast services? Scotland-Birmingham was a XC route at the time the Voyagers were ordered.



You said



Explain what you meant if you didn't envisage 3tph to Southport ahead of 2tph on the Mid-Cheshire line.

You're the only person I've heard who's suggested 3tph between Manchester and Southport and haven't exactly backed up your point very well considering you expanded on that by saying Bolton needs more trains, even though Bolton trains aren't likely to continue to Southport post-Wigan to Bolton electrification.

Now are you sure Bolton needs more trains and not longer trains? Bolton has a train every 5-10 minutes to Manchester in the morning peak. Maybe there needs to be a lot more 6 carriage workings opposed to more services?



This morning I said

I thought I made it quite clear that my thoughts were services to Bolton and beyond, my point being that Southport was a useful terminating point, I pointed out other places too. Would you care to highlight those too for the benefit of others? I was making a point. Not working for the Sefton tourist board. As I've previously also said, it is hard to fit a route that goes from the island platforms to the Stockport line without causing reactionary delays,. Ask the planner if you don't believe me.

As for the voyagers, they weren't bought for diversionary purposes as you said. They were bought to replace old stock. My point being that plans change. Virgin did not envisage voyagers doing london-scotland, nor potentially sticking a pan and transformer on them either (before that one went awry)

On another point, you could also say your line just needs longer trains too.

 

[northwichcat]

As for the voyagers, they weren't bought for diversionary purposes as you said. They were bought to replace old stock. My point being that plans change. Virgin did not envisage voyagers doing london-scotland, nor potentially sticking a pan and transformer on them either (before that one went awry)

They did used to run an hourly Manchester-Birmingham service which could have been electric, but that got extended to the South West when the Scotland-Wigan-Birmingham-South West got split up. When trying to find suitable routes for the redundant 450 carriages, DfT suggested switching that service to 350s but Virgin refused.

On another point, you could also say your line just needs longer trains too.

I give up. You obviously think you know better than the results of extensive research that Network Rail have done, where they've concluded Bolton has enough trains to Manchester at peak times but the length of peak trains and off-peak frequency need improving and that the Mid-Cheshire line needs more and faster trains to Manchester, particularly from Knutsford and Altrincham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Manchester to Hope Valley via Stockport might end up with a half-hourly fast service and a semi-fast in one of the half-hours, making stops at say Chinley and Dore. The slow via Marple would drop into the other half-hour, but the route also needs a window for freight in most hours.

It's also possible that one of the fasts might use Dore South Curve to give a quicker journey to/from Chesterfield and beyond, in which case the semi-fast becomes part of the core Manchester-Sheffield service.

While the idea of Liverpool-Norwich being routed away from Sheffield to speed up journeys between the North West and Nottingham has come up before it wasn't mentioned in the TPE consultation where it suggested TPE would take over Liverpool-Nottingham from EMT.

The consultation certainly mentioned a third hourly Piccadilly-Stockport-Sheffield service and suggested it could originate at somewhere like Chester. There was no mention of stopping the service at any stations between Stockport and Sheffield but I'm sure consultation responses from groups such as the Hope Valley RUG and Derbyshire CC will have recommended such an idea.