Northern (Arriva Rail North)

[wirralbus]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
Think 319's seem to be the out of favour unit type these days.

Some of the 319's do look rather tired to say the least .

[knutstransport]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)

(11/01/2020 15:44)wirralbus Wrote:  Think 319's seem to be the out of favour unit type these days.

Some of the 319's do look rather tired to say the least .

Idea is for 319s not being converted to 769s to be replaced by 323s and 331s and returned to Porterbrook, due to Porterbrook deciding it would rather Northern had the 323s, so they can have the 319s back, the complete opposite of what they wanted a few years back.

[knutstransport]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
Network Rail response to petition asking for implementation of additional Macclesfield to Manchester and Greenbank to Manchester services, as promised in the franchise agreement. Interesting he makes no comment about Northwich or Macclesfield. Also interesting he's mentioned the upgrade of level crossings - are these needed even for the existing service level to remain or is he implying some form of additional service can be introduced, despite Network Rail claiming they don't want any more services through either Stockport or Mickle Trafford?

Tim Shoveller has asked me to respond.

Firstly, franchise commitments are set by the Department for Transport. Meanwhile we (Network Rail) deal with the day-to-day practicalities of running a safe and reliable railway.

That said, I understand your frustration over this. Passengers want and need additional services on this stretch of railway (Knutsford-Stockport-Manchester). There are, however, certain practical things currently stopping this from happening.

Before extra services can be safely introduced, upgrades must be completed at three level crossings on this line. We’re currently planning these upgrades, which we’re hoping to complete over the next 12 months.

The second prohibitor is lack of capacity. The railway through Stockport is pretty nearly full. If additional services were introduced through this corridor, it would cause congestion and impact upon the punctuality of existing services.

Until a solution is found, the industry’s priority is to run trains that people can rely on. The rail industry - including TfGM - is working together on a long-term study to identify infrastructure improvements that could be made to the network to enhance passenger services. Once complete, the report will be passed to the Department of Transport and Transport for the North for their consideration.

I hope you find this explanation helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Evans - head of communications, North West and Central

[dca529x]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)

(13/01/2020 19:50)knutstransport Wrote:  Network Rail response to petition asking for implementation of additional Macclesfield to Manchester and Greenbank to Manchester services, as promised in the franchise agreement. Interesting he makes no comment about Northwich or Macclesfield. Also interesting he's mentioned the upgrade of level crossings - are these needed even for the existing service level to remain or is he implying some form of additional service can be introduced, despite Network Rail claiming they don't want any more services through either Stockport or Mickle Trafford?

Tim Shoveller has asked me to respond.

Firstly, franchise commitments are set by the Department for Transport. Meanwhile we (Network Rail) deal with the day-to-day practicalities of running a safe and reliable railway.

That said, I understand your frustration over this. Passengers want and need additional services on this stretch of railway (Knutsford-Stockport-Manchester). There are, however, certain practical things currently stopping this from happening.

Before extra services can be safely introduced, upgrades must be completed at three level crossings on this line. We’re currently planning these upgrades, which we’re hoping to complete over the next 12 months.

The second prohibitor is lack of capacity. The railway through Stockport is pretty nearly full. If additional services were introduced through this corridor, it would cause congestion and impact upon the punctuality of existing services.

Until a solution is found, the industry’s priority is to run trains that people can rely on. The rail industry - including TfGM - is working together on a long-term study to identify infrastructure improvements that could be made to the network to enhance passenger services. Once complete, the report will be passed to the Department of Transport and Transport for the North for their consideration.

I hope you find this explanation helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Evans - head of communications, North West and Central

There is a good, at least short term fix available for the Macclesfield corridor, which wouldn't increase the number of train movements, but would increase capacity, which NR chooses to ignore. Stop the xx20 ex Euston - Man Picc at Macclesfield and similarly the xx15 ex MP - Euston which currently do not. If that meant sacrificing the following XC service, which being short Voyagers, which are quite frankly useless anyway, so be it. No extra trains and more capacity.

[wirralbus]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
The problem then is where does the extra time fit in to the knitting south of Stafford on the Avanti service if you stop it at Macclesfield , does that then trip up a following service .

So much of the timetable in the North West has implications in other areas like South of Stafford and at Rugby.

[iMarkeh]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
For the Mid Cheshire line, isn't there level crossing issues between Mouldsworth and Mickle Trafford. Something to do with agreements with adjacent landowners and if the extra tph was introduced, the level crossings would be locked out of use for longer than the agreement. Sure there was a big explanation on the RailUK forums about it.

Currently, a new service couldn't run east as Stockport is close to capacity and west to Chester because of this landowner agreement thing. A service between Mouldsworth and Altrincham is basically useless so you lose out.

Short term, could you have 2 trains coupled MAN to Altrincham then run the front one fast to Northwich then all stops to Chester. The rear service calling all stops to Greenbank or would that cause too much confusion?

The only other way to accommodate this would be coupling to the Buxton service at Stockport (and uncouple on the return) so the main throat has no extra trains. This then has passenger confusion and patching to cross the WCML as main issues to implementation.

[wirralbus]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
The ORR estimate of station usage has Reddish South on 60 in 3rd place , joint least used stations are (drum roll ) Denton and Stanlow and Thornton on 46.

[knutstransport]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)

(14/01/2020 19:03)wirralbus Wrote:  The ORR estimate of station usage has Reddish South on 60 in 3rd place , joint least used stations are (drum roll ) Denton and Stanlow and Thornton on 46.

No surprise Denton is low given the service got switched to Saturdays and the RMT strikes meant no Saturday service for months.

[wirralbus]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)

(15/01/2020 10:56)knutstransport Wrote:  No surprise Denton is low given the service got switched to Saturdays and the RMT strikes meant no Saturday service for months.

Geoff on an all the stations youtube discussion last night said that all three least used stations may only be there as a result of the northern RMT strikes.

Considering Stanlow and thornton recieves more than one train a day Monday to Saturday means to be honest this is the proper least used station .

[ant17612]

RE: Northern (Arriva Rail North)
142021, 142026 and 142092 are the latest trio to meet their fate at Newport.