Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[Killingworth]

The Airport might say they want 25% of passengers to arrive by rail but in reality, that is false. One of the biggest sources of income for an Airport is car parking and drop off fees. If people use public transport instead, they lose out.

Look at new PremiAir terminal thing. Not accessible by public transport. The public transport interchange is a good few hundred metres from the terminal doors (compared to car drop offs and parking buses) which are a few metres away.

Some of the rail links are needed and used, I do not dispute that but some of the links people are campaigning for (Southport is the most notable one) is just a waste of paths.

We'll be flying in a few weeks time and will be away for 4 nights. It will take us about 80 minutes to drive and park at the airport.

I'm 12 minutes walk (down a steep single file muddy path through woodland) from our station with a direct service to the airport, direct journey time about 70 minutes. It has a free car park, but it's full by 07.30 and surrounding streets get heavily congested. We'd need to leave home about 11.00 to be sure of catching the flight (and still have concerns). By 11.00 the direct trains don't stop so we'd need a change either iin Sheffield or Piccadilly adding at least 30 minutes to the journey Coming back in the evening might be better, but an hour between trains and then getting home from the station?

Sorry, I'll be driving. If on my own I'd have lugged my bag down the hill and tried the rail experience to report back, but I'm not going on my own and it's a flat refusal from my other half to the very idea!

However this thread has prompted condideration of the options. I'm sure others living further from the airport may find through rail services more attractive. The thought of changes and an hour between trains swung it for us. Rail fares would be slightly cheaper than airport parking.

 

[158756]

TFW have ran to Piccadilly for a long time. The services just ran into the Mayfield Loop to terminate. I don't think the TFW service provides any issues really on the line. In fact, it may help things extending to the airport as then it isn't trying to cross over into the mayfield loop.

Nothing should terminate in the Piccadilly through platforms. There might be room for the extended dwell time in theory, but as soon as anything is even a few minutes late trains start queuing up behind.

 

[Greybeard33]

If Oxford Road being effectively 2 platform is an issue, why on earth aren't the other 2 brought into service?

Because of platform lengths and because of signal overlap issues, due to the lines merging immediately east of the platforms.

Oxford Road Platform 1 is only 105m, as is Platform 5, the west facing bay, and 1 is only accessible via a stairway from the footbridge. Platform 3 has a usable length of only 137m in the eastbound direction, too short for 6-car trains. And in any case the real bottleneck is usually the two through platforms at Piccadilly, so there is no point in trying to get trains through Oxford Road quicker. Through passenger services mostly use Platform 4 (162m) eastbound and Platform 2 (160m) westbound, although 1 and 3 are used for freights and a few passenger services are booked through 3 eastbound. Terminating services mostly use 5 but occasionally 3 or 1. If a train is delayed in the station for any reason, the signallers bring 1 and 3 into play to try and keep things moving.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is no all stops service on the CLC. The two stoppers both skip stops to fit in between the semi-fasts. This gives frequencies varying from 2tph (e.g. at Urmston) to 1tp2h (e.g. at Trafford Park).

The semi-fasts are slow enough already without making more stops.

Crying out for electrification which with acceleration etc would help with Castlefield corridor capacity I feel

 

[B&I]

A longer line with more rolling stock would make this less likely.

Merseytravel have been thinking about an alternative link between the CLC and the WCML Liverpool branch in their long term rail strategy; although no detail is given what this might entail. Perhaps a link between the WCML just west of Ditton to the CLC just west of Hough Green. Then four-track for one station to Widnes. Mainline trains would use the new alignment, Merseyrail the existing one up to Widnes. Mainline trains would no longer use Allerton Junction in normal service.

Would a 'new' line from Ditton to Warrington, re-using much of the LNWR Bank Quay line, and Merseyrail running to Warrington Central via the CLC, be more likely ?

 

[B&I]

My solution to Castlefield ? Close Ringway. Perhaps then, with it no longer serving as a vital source of prestige/ local authority revenue for a certain element of Greater Manchester / Cheshire's population, it would stop being the tail that wags the entire Northern transport system dog (both for the GM powers that be, and a certain element on here). And maybe the everyday transport needs of hundreds of thousands of people (including the many residents of the Manchester region who put up with a seventh rate commuter rail service) would take precedence over the desire of Sid and Doris Bonkers from Slagborough-on-Sea, Country Northeastshire, to have a direct train to an airport over 100 miles away. Which, when the delusions about its importance to the north's economy are stripped away, seems to be the airport's primary purpose.

 

[HSTEd]

Would a 'new' line from Ditton to Warrington, re-using much of the LNWR Bank Quay line, and Merseyrail running to Warrington Central via the CLC, be more likely ?

Wouldn't it be much easier to just transfer the calls at Mossley Hill and West Allerton back to the Liverpool-Crewe route and extend from Hunt's Cross to Warrington with minimal (if any) additional trackage?

 

[B&I]

Wouldn't it be much easier to just transfer the calls at Mossley Hill and West Allerton back to the Liverpool-Crewe route and extend from Hunt's Cross to Warrington with minimal (if any) additional trackage?

Perhaps, though to maintain current service levels you'd need to.slow down at least 1 of the already deathly slow Liverpool-Brum services per hour still further (assuming the Halton Curve service would pick up the other). My own preference would be a new long distance approach line to Liverpool with much more frequent local trains using the existing lines (and similar arrangements in Manchester and a number of other major cities).

 

[Ianno87]

My solution to Castlefield ? Close Ringway. Perhaps then, with it no longer serving as a vital source of prestige/ local authority revenue for a certain element of Greater Manchester / Cheshire's population, it would stop being the tail that wags the entire Northern transport system dog (both for the GM powers that be, and a certain element on here). And maybe the everyday transport needs of hundreds of thousands of people (including the many residents of the Manchester region who put up with a seventh rate commuter rail service) would take precedence over the desire of Sid and Doris Bonkers from Slagborough-on-Sea, Country Northeastshire, to have a direct train to an airport over 100 miles away. Which, when the delusions about its importance to the north's economy are stripped away, seems to be the airport's primary purpose.

Great parody post. Nobody could possibly seriously suggest such a thing in real life.

(Manchester Airport's annual passenger usage for flying roughly equals the annual usage of Manchester Piccadilly for rail journeys)

 

[mmh]

Great parody post. Nobody could possibly seriously suggest such a thing in real life.

Oh they could! I suspect it is indeed a parody of someone's very real view.

 

[daodao]

My solution to Castlefield ? Close Ringway. Perhaps then, with it no longer serving as a vital source of prestige/ local authority revenue for a certain element of Greater Manchester / Cheshire's population, it would stop being the tail that wags the entire Northern transport system dog (both for the GM powers that be, and a certain element on here). And maybe the everyday transport needs of hundreds of thousands of people (including the many residents of the Manchester region who put up with a seventh rate commuter rail service) would take precedence over the desire of Sid and Doris Bonkers from Slagborough-on-Sea, Country Northeastshire, to have a direct train to an airport over 100 miles away. Which, when the delusions about its importance to the north's economy are stripped away, seems to be the airport's primary purpose.

Well put. Of course it shouldn't be closed, but for all its pretensions, Ringway remains primarily a holiday airport. Foreign business travellers want to fly direct to the nearest city airport, e.g. Yeadon or Woolsington, and interline elsewhere (in particular at Schiphol) if there is no direct flight. The long distance trains to Manchester Airport are more likely to be used by outbound leisure travellers than inbound passengers. They are the services that are fouling up the Castlefield corridor (TPE to Scotland, 2 tph TPE to York and beyond/TfW to Y Gogledd), and need to be removed from it. Eight northbound trains per hour from the Airport (4 stopping trains to Piccadilly only, 4 non-stop to Piccadilly platforms 13/14) should suffice. The fast trains should then call at Oxford Road/Deansgate, with 2 tph non-stop to Salford Crescent/Bolton and then all stations to Blackpool, and 2 tph to Victoria/Rochdale and then all stations beyond to Blackburn/Leeds. Passengers for other destinations can change in one of the central Manchester stations.

 

[B&I]

Great parody post. Nobody could possibly seriously suggest such a thing in real life.

(Manchester Airport's annual passenger usage for flying roughly equals the annual usage of Manchester Piccadilly for rail journeys)

Consider it a thought exercise. Is an airport, a large majority of whose tragic is still holiday goers, really more important than one of the busiest stations outside London ?

Here's another thought exercise. Trains to Manc Airport are currently responsible for much of the congestion around the central Manchester network (bearing in mind that, with other infrastructure interventions, alternative ways of terminating trains around central Manchester could be found). If travel to the airport is so crucial to the rail system, why doesn't Manchester Airport Group use some of its massive turnover to build alternative routes to the airport which bypass the city completely (eg a western link from the mid-Cheshie line, which would allow direct services from Liverpool and all points north west of Manchester via the WCML) ? Why are there no services running to the airport from the south, apart from the Liverpool-Crewe stopper ? Could it be that people going to the airport once or twice a year for their hols generates far, far less traffic than people heading to a major city c 220 days per year for work ?

And no, I don't really advocate closing Ringway, but the promoters of endless air travel growth (both here and among the GM powers that be) need to start adapting to a future where discretionary air travel must fall dramatically as the climate crisis worsens.

 

[JonathanH]

Consider it a thought exercise. Is an airport, a large majority of whose tragic is still holiday goers, really more important than one of the busiest stations outside London ?

Here's another thought exercise. Trains to Manc Airport are currently responsible for much of the congestion around the central Manchester network (bearing in mind that, with other infrastructure interventions, alternative ways of terminating trains around central Manchester could be found). If travel to the airport is so crucial to the rail system, why doesn't Manchester Airport Group use some of its massive turnover to build alternative routes to the airport which bypass the city completely (eg a western link from the mid-Cheshie line, which would allow direct services from Liverpool and all points north west of Manchester via the WCML) ? Why are there no services running to the airport from the south, apart from the Liverpool-Crewe stopper ? Could it be that people going to the airport once or twice a year for their hols generates far, far less traffic than people heading to a major city c 220 days per year for work ?

And no, I don't really advocate closing Ringway, but the promoters of endless air travel growth (both here and among the GM powers that be) need to start adapting to a future where discretionary air travel must fall dramatically as the climate crisis worsens.

The trains don't only run to Manchester Airport because it is the Airport - it is a convenient place to terminate trains away from the city centre. How many trains do you think they could terminate from the west at Piccadilly using just Mayfield sidings?

 

[B&I]

The trains don't only run to Manchester Airport because it is the Airport - it is a convenient place to terminate trains away from the city centre. How many trains do you think they could terminate from the west at Piccadilly using just Mayfield sidings?

So, for the want of terminating capacity around the central stations, we must have Castlefield clogged beyond unworkability, and the section between Piccadilly and the airport almost as bad ? I thought this thread was about solutions to the Castlefield problem, but it seems that the most obvious solutions are beyond the bounds of acceptability.

 

[Greybeard33]

Of course it shouldn't be closed, but for all its pretensions, Ringway remains primarily a holiday airport. Foreign business travellers want to fly direct to the nearest city airport, e.g. Yeadon or Woolsington, and interline elsewhere (in particular at Schiphol) if there is no direct flight. The long distance trains to Manchester Airport are more likely to be used by outbound leisure travellers than inbound passengers.

What does it matter whether passengers are travelling for business or leisure? The purpose of public transport is to take people where they want to go, not to question their motives for travel. Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

In the days before cheap foreign holidays, the rail industry put considerable investment into large stations at seaside resorts, and went to great lengths to run direct trains from all over the country, to avoid the inconvenience of changing. Direct trains to airports are the modern equivalent.

 

[daodao]

Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

Yes, of course. Foreign business travellers are of far more value to the British economy than English riff-raff flying once a year to the Costa Favela by Ruinair, Sleazyjet or their equivalents.

 

[HowardGWR]

What does it matter whether passengers are travelling for business or leisure? The purpose of public transport is to take people where they want to go, not to question their motives for travel. Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

In the days before cheap foreign holidays, the rail industry put considerable investment into large stations at seaside resorts, and went to great lengths to run direct trains from all over the country, to avoid the inconvenience of changing. Direct trains to airports are the modern equivalent.

On your first point, the answer is 'yes' it does matter. The Government's cost benefit analysis reckons business travel a higher benefit to a scheme than leisure or commuting, in terms of time saved. It's irrelevant if the traveller on business is low-paid or high-paid.

On your second point, The catering for holiday travel was unprofitable with large amounts of rolling stock festering in sidings for most of the year. It's a mystery why it was ever catered for.

 

[Ploughman]

Could the lines in question be double decked?
If not Why not? other than money.

This may have been proposed and rejected earlier but too far to go back and trawl.

 

[Clip]

Could the lines in question be double decked?
If not Why not? other than money.

This may have been proposed and rejected earlier but too far to go back and trawl.

Not sure if the viaducts they are built are could cope with that. Could be wrong but it would be a lot of weight to put on them but also where would you start and end them?

 

[B&I]

What does it matter whether passengers are travelling for business or leisure? The purpose of public transport is to take people where they want to go, not to question their motives for travel. Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

In the days before cheap foreign holidays, the rail industry put considerable investment into large stations at seaside resorts, and went to great lengths to run direct trains from all over the country, to avoid the inconvenience of changing. Direct trains to airports are the modern equivalent.

Lots of people like going walking in the Hope Valley. Should we therefore prioritise Hope Valley stoppers over expresses between Manchester and Sheffield ?

 

[B&I]

Could the lines in question be double decked?
If not Why not? other than money.

This may have been proposed and rejected earlier but too far to go back and trawl.

The difficult point would be from just west of Oxford Road to just west of Piccadilly, where I'm guessing you'd have to demolish the existing viaduct and build a double deck structure from scratch. East of that could go the 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly. West of it, I've often wondered if Metrolink could be moved to street level and the old viaduct which once led to Manchester Central used for extra capacity.

 

[Greybeard33]

On your first point, the answer is 'yes' it does matter. The Government's cost benefit analysis reckons business travel a higher benefit to a scheme than leisure or commuting, in terms of time saved. It's irrelevant if the traveller on business is low-paid or high-paid.

Reportedly the UK Government intends to deprecate Gross Value Added as the measure of the benefit of infrastructure investment, in favour of a criterion based on the wellbeing generated. Leisure activities are certainly important to wellbeing.

The government is planning to rip up decades-old public spending rules in an effort to boost economic wellbeing in the north and the Midlands.

https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/g...g-rules-in-cash-boost-for-north-and-midlands/

 

[B&I]

Reportedly the UK Government intends to deprecate Gross Value Added as the measure of the benefit of infrastructure investment, in favour of a criterion based on the wellbeing generated. Leisure activities are certainly important to wellbeing.

https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/g...g-rules-in-cash-boost-for-north-and-midlands/

Reducing air travel is pretty crucial to all our wellbeing, assuming we want a planet which remains habitable in a few decades' time

 

[furnessvale]

What does it matter whether passengers are travelling for business or leisure? The purpose of public transport is to take people where they want to go, not to question their motives for travel. Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

In the days before cheap foreign holidays, the rail industry put considerable investment into large stations at seaside resorts, and went to great lengths to run direct trains from all over the country, to avoid the inconvenience of changing. Direct trains to airports are the modern equivalent.

During one of the various attempts to close the Long Drag, I believe the then Minister of Transport, Paul Channon, when told how important leisure was, or could be to the line, retorted it was not the business of railways to cater for leisure travel.

Fortunately times changed, but not before the closure of many leisure related rail facilities.

 

[HSTEd]

The difficult point would be from just west of Oxford Road to just west of Piccadilly, where I'm guessing you'd have to demolish the existing viaduct and build a double deck structure from scratch. East of that could go the 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly. West of it, I've often wondered if Metrolink could be moved to street level and the old viaduct which once led to Manchester Central used for extra capacity.

Well the area through the University Campus is no longer really problematic, since that whole area is set to be torn down for regeneration anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

Reducing air travel is pretty crucial to all our wellbeing, assuming we want a planet which remains habitable in a few decades' time

Whilst you are right about the need to reduce air travel (indeed all travel), reducing opportunities to get to an airport by public transport is not really the right way to go about that aim.

 

[B&I]

Whilst you are right about the need to reduce air travel (indeed all travel), reducing opportunities to get to an airport by public transport is not really the right way to go about that aim.

If the airport is such an obvious market for rail travel (to the extent that it is supposedly necessary to realign the whole region's transport network around it), why does such a small proportion of its current user base travel by rail ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What does it matter whether passengers are travelling for business or leisure? The purpose of public transport is to take people where they want to go, not to question their motives for travel. Are holidaymakers some kind of inferior being, less deserving of a rail service than business travellers or commuters?

People travelling because they need to (e.g. for employment to feed, house and clothe their family) should absolutely have priority over those who are travelling for discretionary reasons, yes. Particularly where that discretionary use needs to be strongly discouraged anyway because it is so polluting (flying).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the airport is such an obvious market for rail travel (to the extent that it is supposedly necessary to realign the whole region's transport network around it), why does such a small proportion of it's current users travel by rail ?

Most likely because flights are often at antisocial hours when rail is not easily available. Once you add luggage into it that tips it well in favour of the car or taxi.

I can go to Luton airport by train (via Bedford) or coach (from MKC[1]) and a few other esoteric options, but if the flight is at 0630 and arrives back at 2300 as so many do neither of those is any use. I'm sure the Manchester area is very similar.

[1] Coachway doesn't count; there is little benefit to anyone in turning a 30-40 minute drive into a 20 minute drive in the wrong direction plus a longer coach journey.

 

[RT4038]

People travelling because they need to (e.g. for employment to feed, house and clothe their family) should absolutely have priority over those who are travelling for discretionary reasons, yes. Particularly where that discretionary use needs to be strongly discouraged anyway because it is so polluting (flying).

Sounds a bit pompous to me..... However, I await the major cutback to off peak and weekend services, so the railways can concentrate on providing reliable services to those who are travelling in order to feed, house and clothe their families. A fallow period in the middle of the day should enable recovery from the disasters of the morning peak to a promising start of the evening.