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

[Mogster]

Installing a west facing central bay at Oxford Road does seem to be quite a change from the original plan. There’s also no options if either of the 2 through platforms are blocked.

I was surprised by the original plan not having any bay platforms at Oxford Road as turning services round there would seem to take pressure of the double track section at the Oxford Road bridge. I’ve got used to the idea of 4 through platforms now though.

I assume any change to the original plan would take more time?

 

[yorksrob]

That is likely one of the issues that is bubbling under, making changes to the corridor is likely to trigger a wholesale resignalling of the area, that is a once in a control period job and certainly wouldnt be a CP6 item. Picc box is 40 years old in 2028 I think, so its falling into the right timescales at the end of CP7.

I'm not sure how far into the future that is, but I hope the opportunity for 15/16 isn't missed that time round.

 

[yorksrob]

Ok. I'm still looking for quick fixes - things that could be done without actually changing the infrastructure. So please could anyone advise

- do customers on Castlefield corridor services end up in any number in the Deansgate area or anywhere where they could sensibly connect from Deansgate/Castlefield tram stop? What I am thinking here is that all trains pass through Deansgate - so would the time lost in scheduling them to call there be repaid by reducing dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly?
- are the 'spare' platforms at Oxford Road (1 and 3 I think) capable of taking terminating trains from the west, and then taking departures back west again? I get that for practical purposes they are limited to four car trains, but can they be used when there are through trains in platforms 2 or 4? If they can, that would in the short term go some way to meeting the lack of west-facing terminating platforms in Manchester.

Platform 3 certainly is. I've used Atherton trains terminating in there when Victoria's been closed.

 

[yorksrob]

Though I'm sure installing something would be cheaper than rebuilding the entire station?

I guess the advantage of a 2 platform through station with a central bay is that reversing doesn't obstruct any line (and if you open doors on both sides it's cross-platform to and from Picc, too). But would the listed aspect of the station prevent such a heavy rebuild?

Personally I can't see any operational benefit over the present main layout, with three main through platforms, the middle one being reversible.

There is at least the possibility of a train leaving one through platform, with another in the same direction entering the next. Two through with one bay would be a huge loss of flexibility (even without referencing 1 and 5 which, if nothing else, provide the ability to park something out of the way for a bit).

 

[Ianno87]

Personally I can't see any operational benefit over the present main layout, with three main through platforms, the middle one being reversible.

There is at least the possibility of a train leaving one through platform, with another in the same direction entering the next. Two through with one bay would be a huge loss of flexibility (even without referencing 1 and 5 which, if nothing else, provide the ability to park something out of the way for a bit).

But the 'flexibility' is only used because it's there. The two most common reasons for parking something at Oxford Rd are:

1) Late running train to Manchester Airport/Liverpool/whereever

Solution: Find somewhere else to deal with it, or (as per this report) make it run late less often in the first place

2) Train crew not showing up.

Solution: Do a Thameslink and shift train crew depots/ strategy to the ends of the route and change crews here, not on the core Castlefield section.

Installing a west facing central bay at Oxford Road does seem to be quite a change from the original plan. There’s also no options if either of the 2 through platforms are blocked.

I was surprised by the original plan not having any bay platforms at Oxford Road as turning services round there would seem to take pressure of the double track section at the Oxford Road bridge. I’ve got used to the idea of 4 through platforms now though.

Definitely is a shift. If (big "if") wider area changes mean that there is a far better chance of on time presentation into the corridor, then the capacity of the corridor becomes (at least in the medium term) a signalling one (with modest infrastructure optimisation), not a 'big infrastructure' one.

 

[Amstel]

As a regular user of Deansgate I'm still convinced that all the stopping trains there add to the blockage
and there's some mileage in reducing their number. Some stations with twice the passengers have far fewer trains.
Instead of the 5 trains an hour in one direction and 4 in the other, what's needed is only 2 in each direction (satisfying the
obligation of the north south stoppers between Stockport and Bolton, speeded up by being electric) and not the CLC diesels. I say this even though I would be affected.
PS On a separate point, all this talk of S-Bahn in Berlin is nostalgic to me, I was taken off one at the border stop in Friedrichstrasse by Russian solidiers in 1969.

 

[Ianno87]

Platform 3 certainly is. I've used Atherton trains terminating in there when Victoria's been closed.

Not ideal, as on departure it's a conflicting move with the next train into 4 from the Deansgate direction. Practical during amended timetables, not for a future peak service.

 

[Ianno87]

As a regular user of Deansgate I'm still convinced that all the stopping trains there add to the blockage
and there's some mileage in reducing their number. Some stations with twice the passengers have far fewer trains.
Instead of the 5 trains an hour in one direction and 4 in the other, what's needed is only 2 in each direction (satisfying the
obligation of the north south stoppers between Stockport and Bolton, speeded up by being electric) and not the CLC diesels. I say this even though I would be affected.
PS On a separate point, all this talk of S-Bahn in Berlin is nostalgic to me, I was taken off one at the border stop in Friedrichstrasse by Russian solidiers in 1969.

One of the headaches of Deansgate is that, if an eastbound train is in the platform, I don't think (IIRC) a second train can clear Castlefield Jn. Problem is Deansgate is already so close to Oxford Rd, shifting the platforms eastward doesn't make sense!

 

[Starmill]

One of the headaches of Deansgate is that, if an eastbound train is in the platform, I don't think (IIRC) a second train can clear Castlefield Jn. Problem is Deansgate is already so close to Oxford Rd, shifting the platforms eastward doesn't make sense!

The real solution is to be found by closing the station completely, and connecting it by travellator to Manchester Oxford Road to preserve the exits.

Of course, that would require a lot of money and be totally pointless if not done as part of a reconstruction of Oxford Road.

 

[yorksrob]

But the 'flexibility' is only used because it's there. The two most common reasons for parking something at Oxford Rd are:

1) Late running train to Manchester Airport/Liverpool/whereever

Solution: Find somewhere else to deal with it, or (as per this report) make it run late less often in the first place

2) Train crew not showing up.

Solution: Do a Thameslink and shift train crew depots/ strategy to the ends of the route and change crews here, not on the core Castlefield section.



Definitely is a shift. If (big "if") wider area changes mean that there is a far better chance of on time presentation into the corridor, then the capacity of the corridor becomes (at least in the medium term) a signalling one (with modest infrastructure optimisation), not a 'big infrastructure' one.

Even if you could shift opportunistic terminations elsewhere, you would still lose the ability to have trains leaving and entering the station simultaneously in the same direction. For little benefit as far as I can see.

Not ideal, as on departure it's a conflicting move with the next train into 4 from the Deansgate direction. Practical during amended timetables, not for a future peak service.

I would be in favour of altering the layout at the west end of the station so that a train leaving 3 westwards could avoid the Eastbound line. This must surely be easier than remodelling the whole station.

 

[Mogster]

The real solution is to be found by closing the station completely, and connecting it by travellator to Manchester Oxford Road to preserve the exits.

Of course, that would require a lot of money and be totally pointless if not done as part of a reconstruction of Oxford Road.

It is 600m from Deansgate to Oxford Road.

 

[Starmill]

It is 600m from Deansgate to Oxford Road.

Yes, precisely.

 

[Ianno87]

Even if you could shift opportunistic terminations elsewhere, you would still lose the ability to have trains leaving and entering the station simultaneously in the same direction. For little benefit as far as I can see.

But if there's only one platform each way at Piccadilly, two platforms each way only at Oxford Rd doesn't materially benefit the throughput of trains (compared to a signalling solution on a single platform each way)

A simpler layout at Oxford Rd as the capability to be slightly faster, and have signalling better optimised for throughput, not fitting around S&C.

I would be in favour of altering the layout at the west end of the station so that a train leaving 3 westwards could avoid the Eastbound line. This must surely be easier than remodelling the whole station.

Looks very tight between the platforms and viaduct..and would preclude a westward platform extension without some pretty hefty viaduct work. Definitely no chance of a clear overlap for an eastbound train entering P2 simultaneously.

 

[yorksrob]

But if there's only one platform each way at Piccadilly, two platforms each way only at Oxford Rd doesn't materially benefit the throughput of trains (compared to a signalling solution on a single platform each way)

A simpler layout at Oxford Rd as the capability to be slightly faster, and have signalling better optimised for throughput, not fitting around S&C.



Looks very tight between the platforms and viaduct..and would preclude a westward platform extension without some pretty hefty viaduct work. Definitely no chance of a clear overlap for an eastbound train entering P2 simultaneously.

Well, if we're ever to get 15 and 16 at Pic, they're likely to be less value without this possibility at Oxford Road.

Also, if you have two overcrowded single platforms in succession, you have the potential for a long loading time at one, followed by another long loading time at the next. By having two platforms at one, yes, you still have the bottleneck at Piccadilly, but at least there's less scope for an additional delay at Oxford Road.

I admit it is quite tight on the viaduct, but perhaps slewing the whole alignment south at the west end a little could provide the room, even if platform 1 had to be sacrificed.

 

[Greybeard33]

I would be in favour of altering the layout at the west end of the station so that a train leaving 3 westwards could avoid the Eastbound line. This must surely be easier than remodelling the whole station.

I believe that this is exactly what the report is advocating. Just an additional crossover between the P3 and P2 lines at the west end of the station. No need to disconnect the eastern end of P3, nor to lose P1 and the P5 bay, which could still be used during disruption. The relevant para. in the report says:

Provision of a centre-turnback, that allows a non-conflicting arrival and departure would eliminate this conflict entirely. Trains would only need to be planned on headway and the opposite direction services are no longer a factor. This intervention was assumed to be in place as part of the analysis to eliminate a known existing constraint and allow the analysis to capture other potential constraints without wasting excessive amounts of limited time trying to make the Corridor TPR compliant.

"Turnback", not bay.

The Northern Hub Oxford Road remodelling scheme, linked with Piccadilly P15/16, is on a much larger scale, extending the platforms westwards over a widened viaduct and removing the P5 bay.

 

[Killingworth]

Given that you can build an office building in 2 months, how should rebuilding a station be that difficult?

Look at Leeds. It's a much less extensive job. But let's not digress.

One of the major reasons for not doing 15/16 is the disruption to existing services with live trains and traffic in close proximity. Doing the whole station while trains and trams are operating would be delicate. Seeing how long it takes to plan anything rail related we'd be overtaken by several waves of new needs and redesigns before it would be started. However, the idea has attraction. As long as the new design incorporates provision for at least a trebling of capacity before it's completed.

We keep talking about taking traffic off roads but to make any significant impact a huge increase in capacity is needed. In 2013 a 56% increase in traffic by 2029 was forecast in the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme's proof of evidence for Sheffield. That will be well surpassed.

If that's all that's expected rail's market share of journeys won't increase by more than 1 or 2%, too little to be noticed on most roads. We need to be thinking really big rather than successive applications of sticking plasters in assorted shapes and sizes.

 

[Greybeard33]

It is 600m from Deansgate to Oxford Road.

But only 420m from the east end of the Deansgate platforms to the west end of the Oxford Road platforms. The remodelling scheme would reduce this distance substantially.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe that this is exactly what the report is advocating. Just an additional crossover between the P3 and P2 lines at the west end of the station. No need to disconnect the eastern end of P3, nor to lose P1 and the P5 bay, which could still be used during disruption. The relevant para. in the report says:

"Turnback", not bay.

The Northern Hub Oxford Road remodelling scheme, linked with Piccadilly P15/16, is on a much larger scale, extending the platforms westwards over a widened viaduct and removing the P5 bay.

That's good news that they have room for it. Given the current limitations of Piccadilly, I get the impression that the three through platforms come in quite handy.

 

[Greybeard33]

That is likely one of the issues that is bubbling under, making changes to the corridor is likely to trigger a wholesale resignalling of the area, that is a once in a control period job and certainly wouldnt be a CP6 item. Picc box is 40 years old in 2028 I think, so its falling into the right timescales at the end of CP7.

The corridor itself was resignalled to the Manchester ROC in association with the Ordsall Chord works. I believe a number of improvements were made to reduce headways and increase flexibility, including the Oxford Road mid platform signals. However, the report points out:

Signalling operations across the Greater Manchester area and the feeder routes towards the Castlefield Corridor are characterised by a complicated set up of different locations (ten separate locations working in isolation within three miles) and a mix of technologies, including a mix of lever frame, NX and VDU signalling. Routes from the north, south, east and west converge in the Castlefield Corridor, where trains pass to and from areas controlled by Manchester Piccadilly SCC and Manchester ROC, and vice versa. Trains from the north and south are signalled towards the Castlefield Corridor by Manchester Piccadilly, are then signalled within the central core by Manchester ROC before again coming under the control of Manchester Piccadilly (or another fringe location depending upon end destination).

This complicated situation means that strategically managing services through the central Manchester area and beyond is not possible for signallers in the Greater Manchester area, and trains are invariably dealt with on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Efforts by both signallers and Train Running Controllers to manage the service are compounded and limited by lack of regulating points heading towards central Manchester and also lack of flexibility at Manchester Oxford Road due to shared overlaps at the platform ends.

 

[Greybeard33]

The real solution is to be found by closing the station completely, and connecting it by travellator to Manchester Oxford Road to preserve the exits.

Of course, that would require a lot of money and be totally pointless if not done as part of a reconstruction of Oxford Road.

The modelling in the report assumed no calls at Deansgate, as well as a central turnback at Oxford Road, and still found that the realistic capacity of the corridor is 13tphpd, i.e. 1tphpd less than the current timetable.

 

[The Planner]

The corridor itself was resignalled to the Manchester ROC in association with the Ordsall Chord works. I believe a number of improvements were made to reduce headways and increase flexibility, including the Oxford Road mid platform signals. However, the report points out:

You sure it wasn't just a re-control? there certainly haven't been any improvements that I know of, the headways are no different.

 

[The Planner]

The modelling in the report assumed no calls at Deansgate, as well as a central turnback at Oxford Road, and still found that the realistic capacity of the corridor is 13tphpd, i.e. 1tphpd less than the current timetable.

The old rule we had to follow was 12tph, that got altered to 13tph between Picc and Oxford Road and 15tph for Oxford Road to Deansgate with the extra 2tph terminating at Oxford Road for the May 2018 timetable.

 

[jfollows]

It was 5tph (Oxford Road to Piccadilly), one of which reversed at Manchester Piccadilly, when London Road signal box controlled the entire route back in the 1970s per my diagram attached to post 207. Clearly there have been improvements to signalling since then, but they are incremental rather than radical.

7tph Deansgate to Oxford Road when you add the Liverpool/Warrington stopper and the Chester fast.

Probably fewer freight trains then too, because Longsight FLT was in use at the time (I believe it closed in 1987). Plus freight trains from Trafford Park could use the Fallowfield Loop if appropriate. For example, 4D51 17:25 Freightliner from Trafford Park to Holyhead went via Gorton and Philips Park No. 2, presumably thence through Manchester Victoria.

In my 1977 WTT, there are no trains from Trafford Park to/through Oxford Road on a weekday between 0Z00 09:24 MSX LD Trafford Park to Longsight and 4K64 19:35 SX Freightliner Trafford Park to Crewe BHSSM. So nothing during the day versus an hourly path today.

 

[Greybeard33]

The old rule we had to follow was 12tph, that got altered to 13tph between Picc and Oxford Road and 15tph for Oxford Road to Deansgate with the extra 2tph terminating at Oxford Road for the May 2018 timetable.

The May 2018 timetable, as actually implemented, had 14tph, not 15tph, including 1tph freight and 2tph terminating at Oxford Road. The current timetable is still 14tph, as is the December 2019 timetable. Perhaps the original intent was for 15tph, before the late changes to the May 2018 timetable when Bolton electrification was delayed?

 

[Tomnick]

You sure it wasn't just a re-control? there certainly haven't been any improvements that I know of, the headways are no different.

It was just a recontrol for Oxford Road itself - the mid-platform signals are nothing new. Deansgate, up to and including the signals taking you into Oxford Road in the Up, was resignalled for the new layout but I doubt it’d have done much for headways.

 

[Greybeard33]

It was just a recontrol for Oxford Road itself - the mid-platform signals are nothing new. Deansgate, up to and including the signals taking you into Oxford Road in the Up, was resignalled for the new layout but I doubt it’d have done much for headways.

Thanks, I stand corrected. Did the changes increase the turnout linespeed through Castlefield Jn or was it already 30mph as now? And was the bi-di signalling through Deansgate introduced at that time?

 

[Mogster]

But only 420m from the east end of the Deansgate platforms to the west end of the Oxford Road platforms. The remodelling scheme would reduce this distance substantially.

Thinking about it some more I can imagine extended platforms and a concourse up on the viaduct connecting what are Oxford Road and Deansgate making 1 station. Travellators connecting the Deansgate and Oxford Road exits.

It’d be eye wateringly expensive though I’d imagine... It could regenerate what is a bit of a run down part of town though.

 

[jfollows]

Did the changes increase the turnout linespeed through Castlefield Jn or was it already 30mph as now?

The turnout linespeed used to be 20mph I believe, according to my old diagram attached.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks, I stand corrected. Did the changes increase the turnout linespeed through Castlefield Jn or was it already 30mph as now? And was the bi-di signalling through Deansgate introduced at that time?

It actually slowed things down a bit. It’s now 25mph in the Down direction towards Water Street Junction, as well as the long-standing TSR to/from the CLC. The bi-di through Deansgate did indeed appear then - you can come bang road all the way through on the Up now, but there’s one signal section missing on the Down leaving Oxford Road (you have to leave on the proper line but can cross back to the wrong line after the signal between there and Deansgate). It’s quite interesting to see how the new arrangements interface with the old stuff that’s just been recontrolled.

 

[Ken H]

I remember when the picc-deansgate line just had the 304's doing the Altrinchams. 1 from Crewe via Stockport, one from Alderley Edge via stockpot, and two off the Styal line.
The liverpools via Warrington and the chesters terminated at oxford rd.
Then there was the centerline bus to Victoria...