Why the decision to divert TPE South to Liverpool

[Philip]

As the title of the thread states, what was the thinking behind the decision to extend TPE South services from Sheffield beyond Manchester to Liverpool?

Until late 2021, Northern ran an identical service in the same path between the Airport and Liverpool via Warrington, with a similar calling pattern; the Cleethorpes terminated at Piccadilly. Liverpool-Sheffield has had a long term hourly frequency which is ok between these cities, I don't see the point in making this half-hourly. Notwithstanding the unreliability of TPE compared with Northern and the effect this has had on the CLC Liverpool line, the decision not to reinstate the Northern CLC semi-fast but rather send the TPE South in its place has caused a greater crossing conflict across the Piccadilly throat (trains coming the Hazel Grove line to platform 14 at Piccadilly rather than the main shed); CLC Liverpool-Airport was good because there was little conflict at Piccadilly throat and it was more reliable than the TPE service. It has also led to the removal of useful direct services between Bolton/Salford and Stockport, in order to accommodate the extra crossing moves at Piccadilly.

I can't see any real benefits that the new TPE South route has brought, but plenty of disadvantages both for reliability of the service itself, worse reliability on the Hope Valley and CLC lines, and a bad impact on cross-Manchester connections.

 

[LittleAH]

Manchester Rail Taskforce. End of thread.

 

[mike57]

Who ever decided it was a good idea, it does seem rather perverse. One of the reasons given for sending the second TPE north Liverpool service via Victoria and Chat Moss, which although quicker to Liverpool serves less useful places along the way, was the need for the service to cross Piccadilly throat and then navigate Castlefield, so what happens, a new service using that route is introduced. Couple that with the random TPE cancellation lottery, and it seems counterproductive. TPE are pretty well unusable now when planning a journey, the only saving grace is the route also has the EMR service, so passengers wont end up totally stranded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who ever decided it was a good idea, it does seem rather perverse. One of the reasons given for sending the second TPE north Liverpool service via Victoria and Chat Moss, which although quicker to Liverpool serves less useful places along the way, was the need for the service to cross Piccadilly throat and then navigate Castlefield, so what happens, a new service using that route is introduced.

No, it doesn't. It comes from Stockport, not Stalybridge, so only has to cross the Styal lines to access 13/14, not the whole throat.

 

[Philip]

No, it doesn't. It comes from Stockport, not Stalybridge, so only has to cross the Styal lines to access 13/14, not the whole throat.

The 'whole throat' in this interpretation is the section from Piccadilly to Edgeley Junction, so the Cleethorpes has to cross from the furthest eastern line to the furthest west, taking a lot of track capacity on this stretch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 'whole throat' in this interpretation is the section from Piccadilly to Edgeley Junction, so the Cleethorpes has to cross from the furthest eastern line to the furthest west, taking a lot of track capacity on this stretch.

It's the wrong interpretation when you're considering why it was swapped with a service coming from Stalybridge, though. That did have to cross the entire throat, from naturally going into P1-3 to P14, and it's that that was undesirable (and one of the reasons behind the Ordsall Chord!)

 

[Philip]

It's the wrong interpretation when you're considering why it was swapped with a service coming from Stalybridge, though. That did have to cross the entire throat, from naturally going into P1-3 to P14, and it's that that was undesirable (and one of the reasons behind the Ordsall Chord!)

Even so, the question is why on earth was it extended to Liverpool in the first place? It worked very well when it terminated at Piccadilly as it helped recover delays picked up further eastwards, as well as saving a diagram. And the loss of direct services between the Bolton route and Stockport is rather more inconvenient than the addition of a second Liverpool-Sheffield is convenient.

 

[30907]

Even so, the question is why on earth was it extended to Liverpool in the first place? It worked very well when it terminated at Piccadilly

I thought it reversed and went out to Airport?

as it helped recover delays picked up further eastwards, as well as saving a diagram. And the loss of direct services between the Bolton route and Stockport is rather more inconvenient than the addition of a second Liverpool-Sheffield is convenient.

Surely the second CLC route service to Manchester is needed though, and can't go anywhere else but via Oxford Road?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I thought it reversed and went out to Airport?

It did Pre-Covid, but most or all were cut back to Piccadilly from mid-2020 iirc.

 

[dosxuk]

I thought it reversed and went out to Airport?

It did, until the castlefield corridor debacle meant all the services got reviewed, and they found out that (during covid) not many people were going to Manchester Airport from the Sheffield direction, so the service got permanently truncated to the main shed. All complaints about the removal of airport services were simply answered with it was necessary to improve reliability.

 

[Philip]

Surely the second CLC route service to Manchester is needed though, and can't go anywhere else but via Oxford Road?

I initially mentioned that the TPE service replaced a Northern service between the Airport and Liverpool via Warrington, in the same path and with a similar stopping pattern, which last run in late '21/early '22. It doesn't make sense in deciding to extend the TPE service to Liverpool rather than reinstating this Northern service.

 

[tbtc]

Many reasons

Mainly because the Recovery Taskforce tried to simplify everything into repeating half hourly patterns (other than Southport, which is “Special”)

But it was a convenient way of removing two DMUs per hour from the Airport branch, freeing up a couple of units (bearing in mind that the average load at the airport is thirty- something, there were plenty of electric operated services for these passengers to be accommodated on instead)

It slightly increased the TPE PVR (by one) but freed up three Northern units - TPE Obviously have a surplus, having taken on the 397/802/Mk5s with no loss to their full allocation of 185s, whereas Northern are stretched tighter

It paves the way for the medium term option to give the Cleethorpes and Nottingham services to the same TOC (since they are both “fringe” routes to their existing franchise)

It gives the Liverpool service somewhere to go if not the electrified Airport branch (cutting Liverpool’s longer distance links is politically “brave”, so terminating them at Oxford Road sends out of the question)

The operational problems this extended service have had are entirely down to staffing problems at the two TOCs

As someone living in South Yorkshire, it’s not a terrible change, might be nicer to have some direct Blackpool like we used to in BR days, but this is less about long distance flows and more about tidying up service patterns by matching up two unelectrified routes that need medium distance DMUs like 158/170/185s. No point in over thinking it

It doesn't make sense in deciding to extend the TPE service to Liverpool rather than reinstating this Northern service

Where does that Liverpool service go then?

Spend a DMU sending it down the electrified Airport branch (which is congested with trains but not congested with passengers)?

Terminate at Oxford Road and incur the wrath of Merseyside losing connections at Piccadilly?

Or send it to somewhere else East of Manchester, just not Sheffield for some reason?

 

[Confused52]

Many reasons

Mainly because the Recovery Taskforce tried to simplify everything into repeating half hourly patterns (other than Southport, which is “Special”)

But it was a convenient way of removing two DMUs per hour from the Airport branch, freeing up a couple of units (bearing in mind that the average load at the airport is thirty- something, there were plenty of electric operated services for these passengers to be accommodated on instead)

It slightly increased the TPE PVR (by one) but freed up three Northern units - TPE Obviously have a surplus, having taken on the 397/802/Mk5s with no loss to their full allocation of 185s, whereas Northern are stretched tighter

It paves the way for the medium term option to give the Cleethorpes and Nottingham services to the same TOC (since they are both “fringe” routes to their existing franchise)

It gives the Liverpool service somewhere to go if not the electrified Airport branch (cutting Liverpool’s longer distance links is politically “brave”, so terminating them at Oxford Road sends out of the question)

The operational problems this extended service have had are entirely down to staffing problems at the two TOCs

As someone living in South Yorkshire, it’s not a terrible change, might be nicer to have some direct Blackpool like we used to in BR days, but this is less about long distance flows and more about tidying up service patterns by matching up two unelectrified routes that need medium distance DMUs like 158/170/185s. No point in over thinking it



Where does that Liverpool service go then?

Spend a DMU sending it down the electrified Airport branch (which is congested with trains but not congested with passengers)?

Terminate at Oxford Road and incur the wrath of Merseyside losing connections at Piccadilly?

Or send it to somewhere else East of Manchester, just not Sheffield for some reason?

So your bottom line is that the need to create an old folks home for Medium range DMUs is the defining reason. So the supposed latest plan from the Task Force to electrify the CLC to Allerton Junction directly contradicts the reasons they had for the current arrangement. Yet they favour that, with the massive costs and re-signalling work, to turn-backs at Birchwood and Warrington West ( well probably Sankey where some otherwise useless land could be found). From your rationale we can expect the electrification some time after the end of life of the 185 fleet, is that right?

 

[Gaz55]

As someone who lives in Doncaster, I was quite happy with an hourly connection to Manchester, especially when most services were booked to run as 6 cars. Then they extended the route but most services run as 3 car units. I know the Nova 3s were meant to run some of the services, and the current ills of TPE notwithstanding, but I would really would not fancy going the whole route on a single 185. I have my doubts whether a majority of passengers were actually crying out for the route to go all the way up to Liverpool.

 

[D365]

I have my doubts whether a majority of passengers were actually crying out for the route to go all the way up to Liverpool.

A direct train from Sheffield to the airport was far more useful than Liverpool ever will be.

 

[JD2168]

I agree with the above post about Trains to the Airport, indeed a couple a day still run to the Airport from Sheffield/Cleethorpes.

The one plus point I can see is that both the fastest trains from Sheffield to Manchester generally serve the same stops in Manchester rather than in two locations at Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[LittleAH]

Who ever decided it was a good idea, it does seem rather perverse. One of the reasons given for sending the second TPE north Liverpool service via Victoria and Chat Moss, which although quicker to Liverpool serves less useful places along the way, was the need for the service to cross Piccadilly throat and then navigate Castlefield, so what happens, a new service using that route is introduced. Couple that with the random TPE cancellation lottery, and it seems counterproductive. TPE are pretty well unusable now when planning a journey, the only saving grace is the route also has the EMR service, so passengers wont end up totally stranded.

Firstly, the Liverpool - Scarborough service that crossed the throat at Piccadilly (and caused capacity issues) has nothing to do with the extension of the Cleethorpes service group to Liverpool. Dare I say the Cleethorpes - Airport service that reversed out of Piccadilly in both directions every hour caused similar capacity issues. Secondly, equating the current state of TPE has nothing to do with the decisions made by MRTF - in fact AFAIK, MRTF was a thing for several years.

So your bottom line is that the need to create an old folks home for Medium range DMUs is the defining reason. So the supposed latest plan from the Task Force to electrify the CLC to Allerton Junction directly contradicts the reasons they had for the current arrangement. Yet they favour that, with the massive costs and re-signalling work, to turn-backs at Birchwood and Warrington West ( well probably Sankey where some otherwise useless land could be found). From your rationale we can expect the electrification some time after the end of life of the 185 fleet, is that right?

Eh? MRTF and the decisions made come from stakeholders, politicians and the DfT.

 

[Confused52]

Eh? MRTF and the decisions made come from stakeholders, politicians and the DfT.

I think you will find that the recommendations came from the same useless Network Rail planners that broke the Castlefield Corridor in the first place. It appears that the politicians recognised and corrected their bias against Warrington users. You need to read the comment from Greybeard that I responded to in order to understand what you are commenting on.