Impact of platform staffing arrangements on performance of the 'Castlefield Corridor'

[Ianno87]

Still mulling this idea over so there are loads of obstacles to it, but - In the absence of platforms 15/16... extend 13 and 14 each to a length suitable to accommodate two 5/6 car trains at the same time.

.

Trouble is that "extend" is not a trivial matter. That means widening the viaduct at the west end and/or widening/remodelling at the east end. In a way that doesn't preclude coming back to do 15/16 later. Or having months of disruption to live platforms (and the costs that entails to operators).

By the time that you've done that, you've probably spent a good chunk of what 15/16 would've cost anyway, for a fraction of the operationsl benefit.

The "beauty" of 15/16 is that they could by and large be built off-line (save for tie-ins at both ends) with minimal disruption to existing.

 

[Bantamzen]

The long-distance passengers seem to get forgotten. Piccadilly (MSJ&A) with its bleak platform and pathetic excuse for a "lounge" with inadequate connections to and from that platform must be one of the most disgraceful inter-city station environments in any of the major cities of Europe. A simple platform with no facilities may well be enough for the equivalent of an S-Bahn service, but that is not what this is or was claimed to be. In effect, Manchester has seen £85 million spent on building the Ordsall Chord to create a chaotic situation that many people did predict in advance and that is now confirmed by the recent NR study ("Castlefield Corridor Congested Infrastructure Report - Capacity Analysis – System Operator - September 2019"). The only solution that would seem to provide fully for the capacity needed to operate a mixed long-distance and S-Bahn-type service reliably with the types of rolling stock that appear to be available for the next two decades and to be able to offer long-distance / inter-city appropriate modern facilities is the construction of platforms 15 and 16, along with the acompanying modernisation of Oxford Road. But the Tory DfT seems to have set its face against this. Yet without significant further investment—or a major change in the type of train-service offered through Manchester—the Castlefield Corridor will continue into the future to offer and often to realise the potential for (to put it crudely) buggering up the train service over large areas of the north of England. The whole thing has been an object-lesson in how useless piecemeal investment can turn out to be.

Whilst I'm sure the idea of an S-Bahn service might be appealing to residents of Greater Manchester, such a system cannot be provided onto top of long distance services. So either the long distance services are diverted via a new alignment, say a new tunnelled link under the city, or you tip all through passengers out & add them to the commuters already jostling on the platforms.

The first solution is very expensive, though in very early stages of consideration, the latter is, well just not an option. So what is needed right now is a solution to resolve the bottlenecks whilst still trying to accommodate both local and longer distance services. Perhaps 30 or 40 years from now, something more ambitious to separate the two might be applied, but under the current climate it is highly unlikely.

Still mulling this idea over so there are loads of obstacles to it, but - In the absence of platforms 15/16... extend 13 and 14 each to a length suitable to accommodate two 5/6 car trains at the same time.

Then: 13b train arrives. Sets down passengers. Departs and stops at 13a to board waiting passengers.

Same at 14: train arrives into 14b. Sets down passengers. Departs and moves to 14a to board passengers waiting.

This would require partitions to keep passengers from moving between 13a and 13b etc. But it would remove the conflict between passengers trying to board whilst other passengers are still trying to get off.

It would also require more despatchers present at all times to keep things moving. Maybe TUPE all despatchers over to Network Rail and have a single company responsible for the despatch of trains? At the moment it isn't unusual to see staff from Northern and TPE (sometimes Virgin too if they are diverting through 13/14) waiting to despatch a train - but only dispatching their own companies services.

On the face of it that's not the worst of ideas. However has many people have noted, some of the planned 5 car TPEs may well start to hit capacity pretty quickly, as well as the Northern services. So it may not be too long before accommodating 2* 5/6 car formations will not be enough and the platforms would have to be extended further still. And the question begs, just how far could you extend them? In the long run probably not far enough. Better to just to gain that additional capacity by using the space next to the station that has long been earmarked for P15/16. More expensive in the initial stage, but far better value for money & more future proof.

 

[Meerkat]

In the absence of technology hire someone to run 13/14. Give them an office, a magnetic board, a set of magnetic train icons, access to train running info, and a phone with the right contacts.
There maybe too many types of trains going through, but not that many, so they can have a stack of magnetic ‘trains’ representing all the possible units. Stack them up in the order they are coming through , push them down each time a train leaves and the bottom one falls off. On top of the train a magnetic destination name.
Any spare moment the bod gets in touch with the depot/guard/driver and finds out which way round the train is and confirms the formation, updating the board.
Bod then tells the platform guys over the radio, and passengers over the PA what is coming in, and which zones the various coaches will be.
Stop the PA listing all stops, concentrate on sequence and formation info. Have people in the lounge looking for uncertain people and make sure they know which train they want.

 

[Mogster]

In the absence of technology hire someone to run 13/14. Give them an office, a magnetic board, a set of magnetic train icons, access to train running info, and a phone with the right contacts.
There maybe too many types of trains going through, but not that many, so they can have a stack of magnetic ‘trains’ representing all the possible units. Stack them up in the order they are coming through , push them down each time a train leaves and the bottom one falls off. On top of the train a magnetic destination name.
Any spare moment the bod gets in touch with the depot/guard/driver and finds out which way round the train is and confirms the formation, updating the board.
Bod then tells the platform guys over the radio, and passengers over the PA what is coming in, and which zones the various coaches will be.
Stop the PA listing all stops, concentrate on sequence and formation info. Have people in the lounge looking for uncertain people and make sure they know which train they want.

There are a ridiculous number of train formations possible. Northern run 142, 150, 156, 158, 195, 319 through Castlefield I think that’s it, there may be more. The 142, 150, 156, 158, can be coupled together in any combination and frequently are.

Replacing everything with the CAF units would be a big step forward, reliability issues aside.

 

[Meerkat]

That’s only six types of train to make ‘fridge magnets’ for, to be combined on the board to show what’s coming down the line.

 

[Altfish]

Quite why the platform team allow people to stand right in front of opening doors of busy trains meaning it takes ages to unload is beyond me.

How do you suggest the train dispatchers move people to the differing positions required for... 142, 150, 156, 158, 170, 175, 185, 195, 319, 323, 350, Mk4 passenger stock. I'm sure I've missed some, but you get the point.

 

[Mogster]

That’s only six types of train to make ‘fridge magnets’ for, to be combined on the board to show what’s coming down the line.

Then you have to mark those door positions on the platform.

 

[edwin_m]

Still mulling this idea over so there are loads of obstacles to it, but - In the absence of platforms 15/16... extend 13 and 14 each to a length suitable to accommodate two 5/6 car trains at the same time.

Then: 13b train arrives. Sets down passengers. Departs and stops at 13a to board waiting passengers.

Same at 14: train arrives into 14b. Sets down passengers. Departs and moves to 14a to board passengers waiting.

This would require partitions to keep passengers from moving between 13a and 13b etc. But it would remove the conflict between passengers trying to board whilst other passengers are still trying to get off.

It would also require more despatchers present at all times to keep things moving. Maybe TUPE all despatchers over to Network Rail and have a single company responsible for the despatch of trains? At the moment it isn't unusual to see staff from Northern and TPE (sometimes Virgin too if they are diverting through 13/14) waiting to despatch a train - but only dispatching their own companies services.

This has been suggested numerous timed on here and always with the response that it would make things worse. Any slight disruption results in trains arriving at the "wrong" end of the platforms and a horde of people trying to move to the correct end, as often as not running head-on into a similar horde going the other way.

 

[edwin_m]

Then you have to mark those door positions on the platform.

You could do this with my earlier suggestion of a row of screens above the yellow line showing details of the next train (only). These could include big downward arrows showing where to stand for each door. With a bit of imagination it could also have an integrated set of variable "car stop" signs telling the driver the exact spot to stop so the door line up. It would however need accurate information on the type and formation of each approaching train.

 

[Senex]

Whatever the theoretical capacity of the line (and platforms), it's clear that quite consistently more people are trying to use those two platforms for boarding and alighting than either they or the types of trains running through them can handle in the times allowed. The proper solution is to provide adequate facilities, but those plans were Graylinged. So is there any serious alternative other than to cut down quite markedly the number of trains running through Manchester by way of the MSJ?
I suppose ultimately this is one of the disadvantages of Britain's having been first in the field with railways. Manchester's connecting lines belong to the 1840s, and the way in which things were done in this country meant that there were no pressures to quadruple the southern connections when that would still have been easily possible. Compare something like Berlin's Stadtbahn, which was not built until the 1880s. By that time planning for traffic-flows was much more advanced and that was built as a four-track route separating local and long-distance traffic from the start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then you have to mark those door positions on the platform.

This would be silly. However, if you changed to one train type (3-car CAF EMUs and DMUs in single or double formation) for all services, transferring TPE and TfW to Victoria, you could do that and the benefits would be significant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So is there any serious alternative other than to cut down quite markedly the number of trains running through Manchester by way of the MSJ?

Yes. Make it look more like Thameslink and you could get more trains through - the number of trains and number of people is tiny compared with what City Thameslink does on platforms that are almost as narrow. You need trains of consistent layout with wide circulation areas for quick boarding, and probably no seat reservations so people board quickly and take any seat. The CAF DMUs and EMUs are ideal.

So how about:
- All TPE to Victoria unless running into P1/2 in the main trainshed instead and terminating there
- TfW to Victoria (though once their CAF DMUs arrive they could transfer back, but they do have a different door layout with doors at 1/4 and 3/4 rather than thirds)
- Liverpool to East Midlands to Victoria, then on via Denton to Stockport, having the added benefit of adding a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South. Passengers wanting this from Picc would change at Stockport.

And the following services at 13/14, operated using CAF units only in formations of 3 or 6 coaches; 2 cars to be used elsewhere. No seat reservations, no First Class, so any door will do for any passenger so orientation is unimportant:
- Blackpool North to Manchester Airport 1tph EMU
- Blackpool North to Hazel Grove 1tph EMU
- Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU
- Southport to Manchester Airport via Bolton (2tph clockface half-hourly, same pattern on both to allow perfect half hourly except one would do New Lane and Bescar Lane and the other Hoscar, after Wigan all do Ince, Hindley, Westhoughton, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Deansgate then whatever pattern to the Airport. If only one to the Airport is desirable, terminate the other in the Picc reversing siding.)
- Stalybridge bay to Manchester Airport via Ordsall 2tph, DMU now, EMU once electrified
- Windermere/Barrow to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU

That's 8tph with two on the Ordsall Chord for connectivity, though admittedly wasting the wires on there until Stalybridge gets wired (when is that?)

The high performance of the DMUs could furthermore allow all trains to serve all stations on the way to the Airport, thus implementing the "Manchester S-Bahn" on that stretch and growing patronage.

 

[Mogster]

This would be silly. However, if you changed to one train type (3-car CAF EMUs and DMUs in single or double formation) for all services, transferring TPE and TfW to Victoria, you could do that and the benefits would be significant.

Yes. Unfortunately we are now in the situation were 3 car 195s are replacing 4 car 156s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Unfortunately we are now in the situation were 3 car 195s are replacing 4 car 156s.

That really needs to be a 6-car set.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes. Make it look more like Thameslink and you could get more trains through - the number of trains and number of people is tiny compared with what City Thameslink does on platforms that are almost as narrow. You need trains of consistent layout with wide circulation areas for quick boarding, and probably no seat reservations so people board quickly and take any seat. The CAF DMUs and EMUs are ideal.

So how about:
- All TPE to Victoria unless running into P1/2 in the main trainshed instead and terminating there
- TfW to Victoria (though once their CAF EMUs arrive they could transfer back, but they do have a different door layout with doors at 1/4 and 3/4 rather than thirds)
- Liverpool to East Midlands to Victoria, then on via Denton to Stockport, having the added benefit of adding a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South. Passengers wanting this from Picc would change at Stockport.

And the following services at 13/14, operated using CAF units only in formations of 3 or 6 coaches; 2 cars to be used elsewhere. No seat reservations, no First Class, so any door will do for any passenger so orientation is unimportant:
- Blackpool North to Manchester Airport 1tph EMU
- Blackpool North to Hazel Grove 1tph EMU
- Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU
- Southport to Manchester Airport via Bolton (2tph clockface half-hourly, same pattern on both to allow perfect half hourly except one would do New Lane and Bescar Lane and the other Hoscar, after Wigan all do Ince, Westhoughton, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Deansgate then whatever pattern to the Airport. If only one to the Airport is desirable, terminate the other in the Picc reversing siding.)
- Stalybridge bay to Manchester Airport via Ordsall 2tph, DMU now, EMU once electrified
- Windermere/Barrow to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU

That's 8tph with two on the Ordsall Chord for connectivity, though admittedly wasting the wires on there until Stalybridge gets wired (when is that?)

The high performance of the DMUs could furthermore allow all trains to serve all stations on the way to the Airport, thus implementing the "Manchester S-Bahn" on that stretch and growing patronage.

So reduce the the number of services / capacity, then sit back and scratch your head when the platforms are even more crowded, with even more punters, even more suitcases, thus needing even more shouty staff? Well, I'm amazed nobody has thought of that before! Oh wait....

You know full well that the Manc-Bahn dream can only be truly realised when the long distance services have their own alignment. Then the existing ones can play S-Bahn all they like, but just shoehorning the problems in elsewhere & crossing your fingers that it doesn't get worse isn't going to work. The best solution to solving the Piccadilly problem is to get P15/16 built (still far more likely than Manc-Bahn even now), the best way to improve overall performance on the Castlefield corridor is to rework Oxford Road into 4, fully accessible and lengthened platforms, and improving the signalling through Castlefield's length to maximise it's capacity. And the best way to solve passenger capacity is to get as many services as possible lengthened (which of course needs the Oxford Road rework to work properly). Chuck in a new container terminal close to the ship canal with a west & east facing interface (as was supposed to be in the planning stages), and hey you're on your way to vast improvements.

Then all you need is £xx billions for a new alignment for inter city services, find a way through Manchester's infrastructure, waterways etc for the bores, station etc, and in 30 or 40 years you might be close to the dream....

 

[Horizon22]

How do you suggest the train dispatchers move people to the differing positions required for... 142, 150, 156, 158, 170, 175, 185, 195, 319, 323, 350, Mk4 passenger stock. I'm sure I've missed some, but you get the point.

That's part of the problem it's clear - that much variety in rolling stock should never be timetabled into just 2 platforms. Consistent timetables with (more or less) dedicated platforms are much more reliable and resilient.

 

[hwl]

Look on the bright side the current performance at P13/14 helps justify P15/16

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look on the bright side the current performance at P13/14 helps justify P15/16

Agreed. For all the "Manc-Bahn" ideas in the world I would rather see it built (but crucially no extra services added).

 

[hwl]

Agreed. For all the "Manc-Bahn" ideas in the world I would rather see it built (but crucially no extra services added).

...but once you have done it a few extra service actually improves the situation further.

 

[sheff1]

as @Bletchleyite has said a few times it is an improvement that needs little in the way of technological improvements, just guards / drivers confirming details, and staff have mobile devices relaying this info. So when a TPE rolls in they can announce that First Class is at the front / back etc etc before the services arrives into the platform. Come to think about it, another no-brainer...

When the Scottish services were taken over by Transpennine, mobile boards (banners?) indicating where each carriage would stop were placed on the platform before each northbound service arrived. Unsurprsingly, this rather Heath Robinson solution didn't last long but, surprisingly, it was not replaced by PIS announcemnts and verbal info from the platform staff.

 

[tbtc]

Whilst I'm sure the idea of an S-Bahn service might be appealing to residents of Greater Manchester, such a system cannot be provided onto top of long distance services. So either the long distance services are diverted via a new alignment, say a new tunnelled link under the city, or you tip all through passengers out & add them to the commuters already jostling on the platforms

I can't see a new alignment being built any time soon - central Manchester has had a cross-city link with Metrolink for almost thirty years now... then it gained additional Pic-Vic capacity with the Ordsall Chord... and the second cross-city Metrolink line... how much more money do we need to "spaff" on linking one side of Manchester City Centre to the other? (to use a word beloved of our PM)

It's nothing like as big as central London, for example.

However you raise a good point about the mixture of "local" and "long distance" passengers/services. I can see why Burnham wants more Metrolink as he can at least control that - rather than the uncontrollable mess of long distance services.

At some stage we have do decide whether we can keep on squeezing all of these hourly services through central Manchester for the sake of the minority of passengers who benefit from long distance links (whether that's people wanting the benefit of an hourly service to Manchester Airport for their annual holiday or Liverpudlians wanting lots of long distance links). Something has got to give.

So how about:
- All TPE to Victoria unless running into P1/2 in the main trainshed instead and terminating there
- TfW to Victoria (though once their CAF DMUs arrive they could transfer back, but they do have a different door layout with doors at 1/4 and 3/4 rather than thirds)
- Liverpool to East Midlands to Victoria, then on via Denton to Stockport, having the added benefit of adding a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South. Passengers wanting this from Picc would change at Stockport.

And the following services at 13/14, operated using CAF units only in formations of 3 or 6 coaches; 2 cars to be used elsewhere. No seat reservations, no First Class, so any door will do for any passenger so orientation is unimportant:
- Blackpool North to Manchester Airport 1tph EMU
- Blackpool North to Hazel Grove 1tph EMU
- Liverpool via Warrington to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU
- Southport to Manchester Airport via Bolton (2tph clockface half-hourly, same pattern on both to allow perfect half hourly except one would do New Lane and Bescar Lane and the other Hoscar, after Wigan all do Ince, Hindley, Westhoughton, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Deansgate then whatever pattern to the Airport. If only one to the Airport is desirable, terminate the other in the Picc reversing siding.)
- Stalybridge bay to Manchester Airport via Ordsall 2tph, DMU now, EMU once electrified
- Windermere/Barrow to Manchester Airport 1tph DMU

That's 8tph with two on the Ordsall Chord for connectivity, though admittedly wasting the wires on there until Stalybridge gets wired (when is that?)

The high performance of the DMUs could furthermore allow all trains to serve all stations on the way to the Airport, thus implementing the "Manchester S-Bahn" on that stretch and growing patronage.

I like it in principle, though it does look like another attempt to crowbar an hourly Windermere/Barrow service through to Manchester Airport (and Liverpool - Warrington would lose a third of its current services)...

...but spreading the Sheffield departures between Pic and Vic seems a backwards step - we should be trying to simplify the muddle of "some departures from Pic and some from Vic" that make travelling from Manchester to Southport/ Blackpool etc complicated. Much simpler to just chop all Hope Valley services by terminating them in the main shed at Piccadilly (thus removing the conflict of Cleethorpes services crossing from the Airport branch into the main shed too). The minority inconvenienced on their occasional long distance journeys aren't as important as the large number of people making everyday journeys.

And I don't think that "a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South" is worth much - they are both around a mile from Reddish North (with other stations around in eastern Manchester). Even if serving them is that important, that means slowing down a long distance service to stop at two suburban stations (when it already skips much more important stations en route).

 

[yorksrob]

The best solution to solving the Piccadilly problem is to get P15/16 built (still far more likely than Manc-Bahn even now), the best way to improve overall performance on the Castlefield corridor is to rework Oxford Road into 4, fully accessible and lengthened platforms, and improving the signalling through Castlefield's length to maximise it's capacity. And the best way to solve passenger capacity is to get as many services as possible lengthened (which of course needs the Oxford Road rework to work properly).

These are expensive, although not in the same league as some of the infrastructure projects Government has set its heart on. These improvements are reasonable and should be achievable, rather than pipe dreams.

These, together would solve a lot of the problems in the area.

 

[AndyW33]

For those who talk about Virgin being able to get their trains the right way round, they have an advantage of having a 'linear' route ie London to Manchester or Glasgow, there is little chance of trains being turned in normal service, so it is easy for them to plan coach arrangements.

You've obviously forgotten about Birmingham New Street, where trains can depart to London by heading north, and to points between Wolverhampton and Glasgow by heading south, as well as the more obvious directions. Some of these are booked workings, some are last minute arrangements by signallers to keep the service moving - drivers and guards sign all the routes specifically so this can happen when required.
Then there's EMR, who whatever the problems are at Manchester, manage to announce which way round their mainline services are at stations between Sheffield/Nottingham and London. Their stock gets into reverse formation by travelling between Derby and Nottingham, which happens frequently because the depot is at Derby but half the services start/finish at Nottingham. Since clearly EMR has a system at Nottingham and Sheffield for entering which way round sets are into the PIS systems for the whole line, it is a mystery why they can't apply this to Norwich-Liverpools, or maybe they do and nobody at Piccadilly bothers to tell the passengers.

 

[Bald Rick]

How do you suggest the train dispatchers move people to the differing positions required for... 142, 150, 156, 158, 170, 175, 185, 195, 319, 323, 350, Mk4 passenger stock. I'm sure I've missed some, but you get the point.

I think it’s a different point.

My point is that when the train arrives, regardless of the type of rolling stock, passengers intending to board crowd around the doors as they open, which slows down the flow of people off the train. Considerably so.

It’s irrelveant what type of rolling stock it is, announcements saying ‘please stand to the side of the doors to let passengers leave the train, this will help us to get you all on board more quickly and get you on your way’ are what is needed. Along with some ‘please don’t act like sheep and all try to board the same door, you are delaying this train for everyone. Look 10-20 metres to your right/left and get on at the door there’.

Simple really.

If you stand on the platform in the way of opening doors on a busy Thameslink service you’ll get a sharp elbow / shoulder bag in the upper body within 5 seconds. Someone on P13 the other day was rather surprised when they got the same off me. I’m afraid I was not sympathetic; it’s basic awareness.

 

[Eccles1983]

I'm sure the people of North Cheshire and North Wales will be happy to cut all ties with the airport and Piccadilly just so your trakfartplan or whatever it's called is put into place.

1 million potential customers less for Manchester Airport - knowing the airport and it's it's relationship with Manchester councils as I do I can say you've got zero chance of that happening.

The lobbying power of MAG is immense, it's not going to allow local services to disrupt lond distance airport services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you stand on the platform in the way of opening doors on a busy Thameslink service you’ll get a sharp elbow / shoulder bag in the upper body within 5 seconds. Someone on P13 the other day was rather surprised when they got the same off me. I’m afraid I was not sympathetic; it’s basic awareness.

I tend to find that standing blocking the doorway stating loudly and aggressively "Are you going to move to let me off first, or are we just going to all stand here until you do?" solves it in most settings. I prefer not to move onto physical altercation as some people might take that the wrong way.

Except TPE on platform 14, on which the offenders simply ducked under my arms and boarded, giving me quite a shove. Brave move when facing off an angry-looking person of my sort of size.

Of course, if we moved 13/14 to use only one type of (CAF) rolling stock and only one type of formation (3 or 6 car) the door positions could be marked, and the "shouters" could ensure people waited in the correct position - to the side of them rather than in the way. They could even consider some kind of proto-PEDs by putting fences there with gaps for the door positions, where it would be safe to queue to board the next train (only) along those fences. I've seen this before elsewhere - the KL Monorail and the Chinese Transrapid, I think - and it does work. The fences could be designed to have some kind of opening, or to be removable, in the event of needing to divert Pendolinos there as they very occasionally do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like it in principle, though it does look like another attempt to crowbar an hourly Windermere/Barrow service through to Manchester Airport

To be fair I wasn't using it to push my "two units portion worked" approach, just to retain the present service as it's 195 worked. This is roughly 1tph which goes from Manchester Airport to either Barrow or Windermere.

(and Liverpool - Warrington would lose a third of its current services)...

Ah, fair point. I suppose you could add a second Class 195 operated Liverpool-Pic to replace the Notts which would have to go over Chat Moss to Vic. Indeed, that might have benefits - how about having both "pure clockface" half hourly, all serving Widnes, Warrington C and Birchwood?

Are there enough 3-car units to do this? If not, perhaps some centre coaches should be ordered. TBH, it was always my view that they should have all been 3s anyway, maybe also some 4s but all the same is much easier.

...but spreading the Sheffield departures between Pic and Vic seems a backwards step - we should be trying to simplify the muddle of "some departures from Pic and some from Vic" that make travelling from Manchester to Southport/ Blackpool etc complicated. Much simpler to just chop all Hope Valley services by terminating them in the main shed at Piccadilly (thus removing the conflict of Cleethorpes services crossing from the Airport branch into the main shed too). The minority inconvenienced on their occasional long distance journeys aren't as important as the large number of people making everyday journeys.

That's also fine by me. Even popping over to 13 for the Airport service is nothing on how far you'll have to pull your trolley bag on arrival at the actual airport.

And I don't think that "a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South" is worth much - they are both around a mile from Reddish North (with other stations around in eastern Manchester). Even if serving them is that important, that means slowing down a long distance service to stop at two suburban stations (when it already skips much more important stations en route).

Fair point. The stops wouldn't be essential, it just seemed an opportunity.

 

[Senex]

- Liverpool to East Midlands to Victoria, then on via Denton to Stockport, having the added benefit of adding a useful hourly service to Denton and Reddish South. Passengers wanting this from Picc would change at Stockport.

Ideally such a service would use an attractively fast route between Victoria and Stockport. But oh dear, there isn't one, and there's now no real chance of creating one. It would have been posssible if we had retained rights of way in this country when lines were closed, rather than flogging off the land in small parcels at low prices as quickly as possible. We know that speed out of Victoria can be increased a little more and that there is the possibility of 60 round a new curve at Miles Platting. If the Droylsden Jn to Ashton Moss Jn line still existed, that might well have been good for entry and exit at 60. And then the four-track alignment from Denton Jn to Heaton Norris Jn could have been reduced to the original two central well-aligned tracks for a fast run to an improved Heaton Norris Jn. It might well have been possible to run round that way without having to make a major time-sacrifice as applies now. It's a pity that in the years of decline no-one ever looked at the Manchester layout before the closures really began and asked what should be kept to serve towards the creation of a good modern railway infrastructure for the city.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ah, fair point. I suppose you could add a second Class 195 operated Liverpool-Pic to replace the Notts which would have to go over Chat Moss to Vic. Indeed, that might have benefits - how about having both "pure clockface" half hourly, all serving Widnes, Warrington C and Birchwood?

That's also fine by me. Even popping over to 13 for the Airport service is nothing on how far you'll have to pull your trolley bag on arrival at the actual airport.

Fair point. The stops wouldn't be essential, it just seemed an opportunity.

Your revised service pattern proposal would reduce the frequency through P13/14 from 12tphpd to 10tphpd (including freight). Passenger flows from these platforms to Scotland, Chester/Wales, Sheffield/Nottingham and Wilmslow/Alderley Edge would be diverted to Victoria or the main shed. This would undoubtedly reduce the platform crowding.

But the downside would be an additional 3tph terminating in the Victoria through platforms (Scotland, N Wales and the Chat Moss stopper). Plus services between Victoria and Ordsall Lane would increase from 3tphpd to 7tphpd (4 TPE, 2 Northern, 1 TfW). These would conflict across the flat junction with the 4tphpd on the Windsor Link (2 Blackpool, 2 Southport). So the congestion would move across the city to Victoria and Ordsall Lane Jn, with knock on delays through the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Ken H]

some questions raised by above comments..
I thought the railway had a system that says what unit was on what working. TOPS & TRUST?
So the system knows the 0948 leeds-carlisle is worked by 158043 and 155005 (Made those numbers and times up.)
Does the system know if 155005 is leading or trailing?
And does it know which way round 158043 is? I would assume it will know that 158043's engine size, and other characteristics.. and whether its a 3 car unit.
It will also know that this train will form the 1106 from Carlisle, so all the data on the train is reversed.
If not this data isnt in the database, why not? Would this data be so hard to capture?
LT used to designate the ends of trains as A and B so they knew which way round they were. Is this done currently on National rail?

Once that data is available for each working, its not beyond the abilities of a software developer to have relevant formation data for the PIS for use of passengers and staff, and to signallers.