Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[krus_aragon]

Some will already have been trained from when they used to crew them in FNW days.

That's a decade ago, though: they won't be "current" on them any more.

 

[geoffk]

Is a platform 7 at Victoria physically possible? Some sources say it is but I've no idea what's behind the wall adjoining platform 6. Even if just a bay platform is achievable it could be used for the Preston stopper, also the Liverpool stopper if plans to split the Liverpool -Man Airport - Crewe service go ahead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that case, you'd need to train the Victoria (Northern?) crew on the use of 175s instead of training TfW crews on the Stalybridge route. I don't think that'd be much of a gain.

In any case no it wouldn't. Overall it would be best to avoid crew changes in central Manchester on non-terminating services entirely.

 

[yorksrob]

Is a platform 7 at Victoria physically possible? Some sources say it is but I've no idea what's behind the wall adjoining platform 6. Even if just a bay platform is achievable it could be used for the Preston stopper, also the Liverpool stopper if plans to split the Liverpool -Man Airport - Crewe service go ahead.

The old "platform 11" into Exchange is still there with a stabling siding. Plenty of room for at least one bay (and level access as well !)

 

[Mathew S]

The old "platform 11" into Exchange is still there with a stabling siding. Plenty of room for at least one bay (and level access as well !)

Yep, after a cursory glance at Google Maps, and a wander around the station, I reckon you could add at least two, maybe three, west-facing bays at Victoria by extending out over the Irwell / Victoria Street. Problem is, of course, that it should have been done before electrification, as to do it now means moving all that gubbins as well.

The other option that always jumps out at me is adding a platform 6 at Oxford Road. There's space for another line, and a platform, north of platform 5... provided whatever is underneath is/can be made strong enough.

 

[yorksrob]

Additionally, reading the previous to last edition of Rail Magazine, it seems that NR have reported that an additional two tracks between Victoria and Salford Crescent would be beneficial. There seems to be plenty of land for this , as the route appears to have been quadrouple in the past.

 

[Gareth]

This suggestion is going to go down like cold sick but here goes...

Divert the Scotland trains to Liverpool. This would take long distance stock off Castlefield and Liverpool has long needed a second tph north to at least as far as Preston. A Northern service could replace it between Manchester and Bolton. Perhaps this could continue up to Lancaster and Cumbria.

Not ideal from a Manchester perspective but neither is cutting the Sheffield services from a Liverpool perspective.

 

[JonathanH]

The other option that always jumps out at me is adding a platform 6 at Oxford Road. There's space for another line, and a platform, north of platform 5... provided whatever is underneath is/can be made strong enough.

The turnout into platform 6 would be incredibly tight and the platform would be short - not really that helpful.

 

[158756]

Additionally, reading the previous to last edition of Rail Magazine, it seems that NR have reported that an additional two tracks between Victoria and Salford Crescent would be beneficial. There seems to be plenty of land for this , as the route appears to have been quadrouple in the past.

Is that really necessary? From the looks of it that line has 9tph, all of similar performance (or at least they can all achieve any speed you can get up along there, the acceleration of some of the current stock might be awful) and identical stopping pattern on that section. How many other short stretches of two track railway support that level of traffic around the country? If it needs extra tracks just to queue up more trains waiting for platforms that seems a lot of money to spend to not really solve anything.

 

[yorksrob]

Is that really necessary? From the looks of it that line has 9tph, all of similar performance (or at least they can all achieve any speed you can get up along there, the acceleration of some of the current stock might be awful) and identical stopping pattern on that section. How many other short stretches of two track railway support that level of traffic around the country? If it needs extra tracks just to queue up more trains waiting for platforms that seems a lot of money to spend to not really solve anything.

I think the point isto get more trains from the West there, which would be possible if additional bay platforms were built. The report itself suggests splitting the Victoria platforms in two with signals.

 

[Mathew S]

The report itself suggests splitting the Victoria platforms in two with signals.

That would help massively, if the timetabling could be tweaked to allow it to be used to the full.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This suggestion is going to go down like cold sick but here goes...

Remove a service from an established IC market entirely in order to put it across to a city that will have lower demand and has no established market? Yeah, great idea.

You could send the Barrow/Windermere to Liverpool but it'd be easier just to lop it at Preston.

 

[Mathew S]

The turnout into platform 6 would be incredibly tight and the platform would be short - not really that helpful.

Would it be *that* tight? And yes, I know it might only be able to fit 3 cars, but every little helps.

 

[Mathew S]

Remove a service from an established IC market entirely in order to put it across to a city that will have lower demand and has no established market? Yeah, great idea.

You could send the Barrow/Windermere to Liverpool but it'd be easier just to lop it at Preston.

You'd still need to provide a fast commuter service from Wigan though. It would help, maybe, by not running through to the airport. But still have to find west-facing capacity at Manchester somehow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'd still need to provide a fast commuter service from Wigan though

No, you don't. They never had one before, it's a recent thing and it only exists because of trains being sent there for reasons of operational convenience prior to the completion of electrification via Bolton.

You certainly don't need one all day. If the commuters shout too much, you could have a single EMU train pair Wigan NW-Victoria, out in the morning peak, back in the evening.

It could return once the capacity work was completed.

There is now no reason to be running anything via Parkside.

 

[Mathew S]

No, you don't. They never had one before, it's a recent thing and it only exists because of trains being sent there for reasons of operational convenience prior to the completion of electrification via Bolton.

You certainly don't need one all day. If the commuters shout too much, you could have a single EMU train pair Wigan NW-Victoria, out in the morning peak, back in the evening.

It could return once the capacity work was completed.

There is now no reason to be running anything via Parkside.

Doesn't need to run via Parkside, I agree. But it is needed. The loadings on that service are bonkers, even off peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't need to run via Parkside, I agree. But it is needed. The loadings on that service are bonkers, even off peak.

I can't speak for commuter times, but I have used the Barrows via Wigan a number of times over the past few months, and mostly hardly anybody boarded at Wigan, they mostly got on at Preston. So at the moment it's a TPE capacity relief that once the 397s are all in use is probably not needed (there are also plenty of other Preston-Manchester services).

 

[Killingworth]

I may have missed it in all the posts to date, but haven't we an example of what can be done in a city not 50 miles from Manchester? Dare I suggest looking at Liverpool and thinking what could be done to get these lines below ground where they can arrange grade separated crossovers.

Newcastle and Gateshead put the Metro under buildings. Trying to cram more trains through a congested city on the surface is wasting time, effort and expense on plans that won't be a long term solution.

I was reminded of that today when passing through from Sheffield to Liverpool. Seeing the cranes and tower blocks all around it's clear that even a subway solution will be difficult due to the need to avoid their deep foundations. Squeezing more tracks and platforms alongside the old would create a legacy of continuing chaos.

 

[Mathew S]

I can't speak for commuter times, but I have used the Barrows via Wigan a number of times over the past few months, and mostly hardly anybody boarded at Wigan, they mostly got on at Preston. So at the moment it's a TPE capacity relief that once the 397s are all in use is probably not needed (there are also plenty of other Preston-Manchester services).

At commuter times the trains are standing room only to/from Wigan.
Off-peak they are consistently full if they're 2-carriage services, and moderately loaded if 3-car.

There is scope to manage demand from Wigan by ensuring that all the Leeds and Blackburn services are 3/4 cars, and decent rolling stock, but the capacity provided by those Barrow/Windermere services needs retaining somehow.

 

[Gareth]

Remove a service from an established IC market entirely in order to put it across to a city that will have lower demand and has no established market? Yeah, great idea.

Ooh, cutting.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would it be *that* tight? And yes, I know it might only be able to fit 3 cars, but every little helps.

No, a Platform 6 at Oxford Road would not help, it would probably make congestion worse. The last thing the corridor needs is additional little 3-car trains weaving across the station throat, blocking all other services in both directions.

The aim should be for all services in the corridor to become at least 6-car, providing more capacity with fewer trains. The Platform 5 bay should be mothballed, because that is only 5-car length and the departing services likewise block both lines. Instead, pending full remodelling per the Package C TWAO, Oxford Road urgently needs a centre turnback for the CLC stoppers in place of Platform 3, as recommended in the Network Rail Congested Infrastructure Report, section C.04.02:

Trains departing platform 5 at Manchester Oxford road must cross Up direction trains as well as have a gap between down direction trains. This is a difficult move to plan and reduces capacity in the rest of Central Manchester. 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.
Impact: High

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

 

[B&I]

Remove a service from an established IC market entirely in order to put it across to a city that will have lower demand and has no established market? Yeah, great idea.

You could send the Barrow/Windermere to Liverpool but it'd be easier just to lop it at Preston.

Heaven forfend that anyone would ever try to develop any intercity markets, particularly any involving Liverpool

 

[B&I]

I may have missed it in all the posts to date, but haven't we an example of what can be done in a city not 50 miles from Manchester? Dare I suggest looking at Liverpool and thinking what could be done to get these lines below ground where they can arrange grade separated crossovers.

Newcastle and Gateshead put the Metro under buildings. Trying to cram more trains through a congested city on the surface is wasting time, effort and expense on plans that won't be a long term solution.

I was reminded of that today when passing through from Sheffield to Liverpool. Seeing the cranes and tower blocks all around it's clear that even a subway solution will be difficult due to the need to avoid their deep foundations. Squeezing more tracks and platforms alongside the old would create a legacy of continuing chaos.

It isn't a subject often addressed on this forum, because there is an element on here who think that beyond the M60 is a trackless void (from which however many airport users must still be transported) and that Liverpool is a collection of hovels cowering on a beach somewhere, and in fairness because the moat obvious immediate problems are around Manchester. But it is true that we should be looking at a holistic solution for long distance trains to create new capacity in Liverpool (and Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Newcastle), as well as Manchester, to radically increase the number of people actually using rail up here.

 

[B&I]

Ooh, cutting.

You are talking to someone here who advocates the Merseyrail underground being replaced with street tramway, because we don't want Liverpolitans having anything which might be better than anywhere else

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ooh, cutting.

Realistic. I've got no issues with the additional Liverpools being put on, and maybe those will make it to hourly eventually. But removing the service from Manchester would be absolutely nuts - "M62 envy" would be the only possible grounds for it. Moving it to Victoria may make sense, but not lopping it. The case for the Barrow/Windermere is far, far lower.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are talking to someone here who advocates the Merseyrail underground being replaced with street tramway, because we don't want Liverpolitans having anything which might be better than anywhere else

Can you quote the post where I suggested that?

Though TBH I consider the two yellow metro systems at opposite ends of the M62 pretty equivalent, TBH. Each has up and downsides. One big downside of Merseyrail is the highest operating subsidy per passenger mile in the country outside of Island Line when you consider that the operating subsidy of Metrolink is £0.

 

[B&I]

Realistic. I've got no issues with the additional Liverpools being put on, and maybe those will make it to hourly eventually. But removing the service from Manchester would be absolutely nuts - "M62 envy" would be the only possible grounds for it. Moving it to Victoria may make sense, but not lopping it. The case for the Barrow/Windermere is far, far lower.

Was it 'M62 envy' which led to most of Liverpool's long distance services being lopped off ?

It's depressing how some people attempt to undermine any attempt by anyone in Liverpool to suggest that anything in the city should be improved by suggesting that it is somehow down to negative character traits among the locals.

 

[B&I]

Can you quote the post where I suggested that?

Though TBH I consider the two yellow metro systems at opposite ends of the M62 pretty equivalent, TBH. Each has up and downsides. One big downside of Merseyrail is the highest operating subsidy per passenger mile in the country outside of Island Line when you consider that the operating subsidy of Metrolink is £0.

I seem to remember that you used subsidies as a reason to close Merseyrail on that occasion too. I mean, we can't possibly spend money on anything in Liverpool, not when there's not a single other railway service in the country which relies heavily on subsidy.

Maybe you could go back through your previous posts and flag up a single post where you have ever been in favour of any improvement to anything in Liverpool (your surprising concession that it should have additional services to Scotland notwithstanding)

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's depressing how some people attempt to undermine any attempt by anyone in Liverpool to suggest that anything in the city should be improved by suggesting that it is somehow down to negative character traits among the locals.

The suggestion is not that the Scottish service in Liverpool should not be improved. It's that removing it from Manchester would be insanely stupid. Services need to be lopped out, but not that one. The very worst I'd do to it would be to cut it to two-hourly and run the Glasgow and Edinburgh together as portions of a 10-car train, but that would require platform extensions at Ringway[1].

(Actually, there might be something in that - through Barrow every 2 hours, through Scotland every 2 hours, Windermere as a shuttle, terminate the Barrow at Lancaster in the other hour - isn't that close to how it was pre-1998? I'm pretty sure it was, and the pre-1998 timetable, while sparser than now, was the last time the North's network was truly reliable)

[1] Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to remember that you used subsidies as a reason to close Merseyrail on that occasion too. I mean, we can't possibly spend money on anything in Liverpool, not when there's not a single other railway service in the country which relies heavily on subsidy.

I have never seriously proposed closing Merseyrail. Serpell did, but I haven't.

I have proposed reduction in staffing, e.g. closing the ticket offices which really don't do anything a TVM wouldn't do, and if that TVM had ToD that would be an improvement overall, but that's different.

Maybe you could go back through your previous posts and flag up a single post where you have ever been in favour of any improvement to anything in Liverpool (your surprising concession that it should have additional services to Scotland notwithstanding)

I think we differ on what constitutes improvements, possibly due to our differing belief on how a timetable should be structured. I value punctuality, reliability, capacity and good connections over long arbitrary through services, so I would, for instance, consider lopping the Norwich to Manchester and replacing it with a self-contained 6-car Class 195 Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester service (to Ringway if you must) to be a significant improvement, because it would be punctual, reliable and everyone would get a seat for the key journey (Liverpool-Manchester south side) and connections would be available for longer distance travellers. I suspect you would consider this a reduction in service.

I have similar views on Kirkby - I would rather Merseyrail to Wigan at least twice an hour then a change for Manchester onto a higher capacity ex-Southport service (2tph clockface) than a slow hourly nowt-after-7pm through service with a 2-car DMU all stops via Atherton (which isn't even scenic unlike via Bolton, you just get to enjoy views of run-down towns and scrapyards). But many, you included I suspect, would see this as a bad thing.

Similarly with LNR, the service needs splitting back up at Brum or even Northampton as it was reliable then. I suspect those enjoying a cheapo through trip from Liverpool to Euston (which is long and slow but better than a coach, which is what it's competing with really) disagree, as once they're on as long as it makes it all the way they probably aren't bothered.