Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[Greybeard33]

I suggest that:

• The Castlefield corridor should not be used for long-distance trains running outside NW England/West Riding and should be used only by Northern Rail (+ freight to/from Trafford Park outside peak hours).

Well, the TOCs and FOCs have started to upload their timetables for May to December 2020, and all the TPE, EMR and TfW services through the Castlefield corridor are still there, as are some peak freight paths.

Methinks it is much more likely that one or two of the Northern services will get the chop. My money is still on truncation to Preston of the Barrow/Windermere to Airport (which only has Contingent Rights to use the corridor until May 2020) and splitting of the Liverpool to Crewe. Although the Liverpool to Airport might also be vulnerable, since it too only has Contingent Rights until May 2020, whereas the Liverpool to Crewe, the Southport to Alderley Edge and the two Blackpool services all have Firm Rights.

But I will be surprised if anything happens before the December 2020 TT change. Timetable planning has become an exceedingly ponderous process....

 

[daodao]

Well, the TOCs and FOCs have started to upload their timetables for May to December 2020, and all the TPE, EMR and TfW services through the Castlefield corridor are still there, as are some peak freight paths.

Methinks it is much more likely that one or two of the Northern services will get the chop. My money is still on truncation to Preston of the Barrow/Windermere to Airport (which only has Contingent Rights to use the corridor until May 2020) and splitting of the Liverpool to Crewe. Although the Liverpool to Airport might also be vulnerable, since it too only has Contingent Rights until May 2020, whereas the Liverpool to Crewe, the Southport to Alderley Edge and the two Blackpool services all have Firm Rights.

But I will be surprised if anything happens before the December 2020 TT change. Timetable planning has become an exceedingly ponderous process....

A quart doesn't fit into a pint pot, and persistently attempting to do so results in spilt milk. Train services need to be reliable and punctual, and radical pruning is required to deal with the mess of the current Castlefield corridor timetable: in my view, that should be removal of all long-distance non-Northern passenger train services from the route. I have absolutely no expectation that this will be done, but progress might be made if all the passenger train services along the route became the responsibility of TfGM.

 

[jfollows]

There are a lot of good ideas here, but I remember that even before May 2008 the services through the corridor were terribly unreliable. I moved to live near to Oxford Road in 1996, so thought it would be sensible to get trains to the airport when I needed to fly from there, but I gave up and booked a taxi instead. Admittedly prior to on-line train running information, I had to walk to Oxford Road to find out that my planned train wasn't running or was running late, so I had to allow enough time to walk to Piccadilly to catch an alternative service from there. So the logic then said just to walk to Piccadilly in the first place to be on the safe side, at which point I decided that was silly and I would book a taxi.

I ended up using the train in one direction only, back home from the airport at the end of my trip, because at that point the delay or the walk was tolerable.

Perhaps the service level then coupled with the ability to look up train performance from home which we have now would have made the service usable for me.

 

[Philip]

The Liverpool CLC line stopping service has been overlooked a bit in this thread. How about keeping the all the stops service as hourly but cutting the other semi-stopping service and incorporating those stops into the fast services, split as evenly as possible?

 

[vidal]

The Liverpool CLC line stopping service has been overlooked a bit in this thread. How about keeping the all the stops service as hourly but cutting the other semi-stopping service and incorporating those stops into the fast services, split as evenly as possible?

The CLC stoppers should only use platform 5 at MCO. I realise that the old platform 6 would not be very useful if it was to be reinstated but would it be able to take a 2 car unit? As to the timings - it only takes one of the hourly stoppers to be cancelled and places like Flixton, Irlam etc end up with no useable service.

James

 

[mmh]

A quart doesn't fit into a pint pot, and persistently attempting to do so results in spilt milk. Train services need to be reliable and punctual, and radical pruning is required to deal with the mess of the current Castlefield corridor timetable: in my view, that should be removal of all long-distance non-Northern passenger train services from the route. I have absolutely no expectation that this will be done, but progress might be made if all the passenger train services along the route became the responsibility of TfGM.

Why is the operator of the train a consideration?

On a personal level, I don't understand why my TFW train to the airport has to be sacrificed, and wonder how my brother in law would commute (Llandudno - Manchester Oxford Road) in future. It's quite possible we'd both just drive. How's that an improvement?

 

[yorksrob]

They need to revisit the idea of building some West facing bays at Victoria. This would at least allow more services from the West to get there more easily.

Also TPE - airport services need to revert to reversing via Piccadilly.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Liverpool CLC line stopping service has been overlooked a bit in this thread. How about keeping the all the stops service as hourly but cutting the other semi-stopping service and incorporating those stops into the fast services, split as evenly as possible?

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.

 

[daodao]

Why is the operator of the train a consideration?

On a personal level, I don't understand why my TFW train to the airport has to be sacrificed, and wonder how my brother in law would commute (Llandudno - Manchester Oxford Road) in future. It's quite possible we'd both just drive. How's that an improvement?

The Castlefield corridor is Manchester's equivalent of Thameslink (King's X-Blackfriars); it would be benefit from having a single operator of passenger train services (instead of 4 as at present). It cannot cope with a multiplicity of long-distance services running through it.

There would still be trains from Llandudno to Manchester (Victoria) - historically, they used to terminate at Exchange. Passengers from North Wales to Manchester Airport could change at Crewe, if the tram from Victoria is considered too slow. However, traffic permitting, it is much quicker to use the M56/A55 to travel from the Airport to North Wales, but there doesn't seem to be any demand for a coach service - previous coach services from the Airport to Chester and beyond have proved non-viable.

 

[daodao]

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.

The current stopping heavy rail suburban services on routes into Manchester are a disgrace, and have deteriorated in recent years. To be of any use, such routes need a regular interval half-hourly or better daytime frequency calling at all stations without skip-stopping. Electrification of the CLC line is desirable, or alternatively conversion to Metrolink as far as Warrington, with Merseyrail running services beyond to Liverpool.

 

[The Planner]

Also TPE - airport services need to revert to reversing via Piccadilly.

Incredibly unlikely.

 

[markymark2000]

All this talk about the Airport, I think it's worth noting that only 15% of people use rail to get to Manchester Airport. Clearly in most cases, Manchester airport links are more of a 'want' than a 'need'. On this basis, silly political football to get direct links from every town of 50+ residents to the Airport is a waste and the services should run which actually have passengers travelling 'through' Manchester to the airport.

Going back to the pre 2016 TSR would help massively as well with the splitting of services (You can see how few people use the Crewe to Liverpool electrics service to travel through Piccadilly.

 

[Greybeard33]

There would still be trains from Llandudno to Manchester (Victoria) - historically, they used to terminate at Exchange. Passengers from North Wales to Manchester Airport could change at Crewe, if the tram from Victoria is considered too slow.

There are gaps of 4 hours+ in the direct services from N Wales to Crewe and Airport passengers from N Wales or Chester would not be keen on lugging their bags across the footbridge at either Crewe or Manchester Victoria. Wales fought long and hard to get the N Wales service extended from Piccadilly to the Airport, with ORR eventually overruling objections from Network Rail and TPE.

 

[Ianno87]

Also TPE - airport services need to revert to reversing via Piccadilly.

Just think how that would look for prospective future rail investment. Hundreds of millions of pounds of brand new infrastructure left without a train service over it.

A total non-starter.

 

[Ianno87]

. Wales fought long and hard to get the N Wales service extended from Piccadilly to the Airport, with ORR eventually overruling objections from Network Rail and TPE.

And now here we are with too many trains on the Castlefield corridor....

 

[Gareth]

The current stopping heavy rail suburban services on routes into Manchester are a disgrace, and have deteriorated in recent years. To be of any use, such routes need a regular interval half-hourly or better daytime frequency calling at all stations without skip-stopping. Electrification of the CLC line is desirable, or alternatively conversion to Metrolink as far as Warrington, with Merseyrail running services beyond to Liverpool.

If the line could be four-tracked as far West as Irlam, two could be for Metrolink calling at all stations from Irlam to somewhere around Pomona, where it could join the existing network. Heavy rail trains wouldn't stop at the intermediate stations, which would improve journey times.

Additionally, four-tracking the western end, say up to Widnes could allow Merseyrail to be extended. The Warrington stations would still be on the mainline, allowing quickish services both east and west.

 

[markymark2000]

And now here we are with too many trains on the Castlefield corridor....

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.

 

[markymark2000]

If the line could be four-tracked as far West as Irlam, two could be for Metrolink calling at all stations from Irlam to somewhere around Pomona, where it could join the existing network. Heavy rail trains wouldn't stop at the intermediate stations, which would improve journey times.

Additionally, four-tracking the western end, say up to Widnes could allow Merseyrail to be extended. The Warrington stations would still be on the mainline, allowing quickish services both east and west.

I wouldn't trust Merseyrail to run further east of Hunts Cross. They are always waiting for an excuse to cut back the service to South Parkway. It wouldn't be wise to let more stations suffer.

 

[Gareth]

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.

 

[Ianno87]

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.

....or just made the service politically harder to divert to Victoria once the direct Airport link became established.

 

[yorksrob]

Just think how that would look for prospective future rail investment. Hundreds of millions of pounds of brand new infrastructure left without a train service over it.

A total non-starter.

Surely you'd be better off running that Bradford - airport service over it and serving a new market.

 

[markymark2000]

....or just made the service politically harder to divert to Victoria once the direct Airport link became established.

Diverting to Victoria causes other issues. You can keep diverting services out of Castlefields but then you end up with more services in other stations. It's moving the problem.

The train service requirements are ever increasing. IF you free up space on a line by moving 1 service, another service will move in it's place quite soon.

 

[Greybeard33]

All this talk about the Airport, I think it's worth noting that only 15% of people use rail to get to Manchester Airport. Clearly in most cases, Manchester airport links are more of a 'want' than a 'need'. On this basis, silly political football to get direct links from every town of 50+ residents to the Airport is a waste and the services should run which actually have passengers travelling 'through' Manchester to the airport.

The Airport's Surface Access Plan has the target of increasing the heavy rail mode share of passenger journeys to 25% as air traffic grows, plus another 5% each for Metrolink and bus/coach. This could mean the number of passenger journeys by heavy rail tripling by 2030, if the Airport grows as forecast. It is not sustainable for car/taxi traffic to the Airport to keep growing at the historic rate.

Around 70% of Airport passengers come from outside Greater Manchester, the vast majority of them from the regions that have direct rail services. Notably, 20% of all passengers come from Yorkshire and the Humber.

 

[mmh]

Out of curiosity I just looked up the trains per hour eastbound on Monday between Oxford Road and Piccadilly. 11 trains per hour through the day, except 12 between 8am and 9am.

That really doesn't seen such an exceptional number when thinking of another double tracked high frequency line, Waterloo East to London Bridge, which has 22 trains between 8am and 9am. Surely the problem can't be simply the number of trains, it must lie elsewhere? What is it?

 

[markymark2000]

The Airport's Surface Access Plan has the target of increasing the heavy rail mode share of passenger journeys to 25% as air traffic grows, plus another 5% each for Metrolink and bus/coach. This could mean the number of passenger journeys by heavy rail tripling by 2030, if the Airport grows as forecast. It is not sustainable for car/taxi traffic to the Airport to keep growing at the historic rate.

Around 70% of Airport passengers come from outside Greater Manchester, the vast majority of them from the regions that have direct rail services. Notably, 20% of all passengers come from Yorkshire and the Humber.

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.

 

[markymark2000]

Out of curiosity I just looked up the trains per hour eastbound on Monday between Oxford Road and Piccadilly. 11 trains per hour through the day, except 12 between 8am and 9am.

That really doesn't seen such an exceptional number when thinking of another double tracked high frequency line, Waterloo East to London Bridge, which has 22 trains between 8am and 9am. Surely the problem can't be simply the number of trains, it must lie elsewhere? What is it?

Waterloo East and London Bridge have 4 platforms and the dual tracking doesn't start until the Thameslink tracks join the mix. (Oxford Road has 4 through platforms but P1 is only used when needed because of accessibility, P2 is Westbound, P3 isn't used much and P4 is eastbound meaning in normal operating circumstances, Oxford Road operates as a 2 platform 'through' station).
The distance between the two stations is double that of MCO to MAN.
This line doesn't have to deal with a Deansgate equivalent with train stopping and blocking the track.
Then to finish the list, it doesn't have to deal with the huge amount of conflicting movements at Ordsall Lane junction.

 

[mmh]

Waterloo East and London Bridge have 4 platforms and the dual tracking doesn't start until the Thameslink tracks join the mix. (Oxford Road has 4 through platforms but P1 is only used when needed because of accessibility, P2 is Westbound, P3 isn't used much and P4 is eastbound meaning in normal operating circumstances, Oxford Road operates as a 2 platform 'through' station).
The distance between the two stations is double that of MCO to MAN.
This line doesn't have to deal with a Deansgate equivalent with train stopping and blocking the track.
Then to finish the list, it doesn't have to deal with the huge amount of conflicting movements at Ordsall Lane junction.

Waterloo East has always had 4 platforms but until the rebuilding of London Bridge only 2 were in use there, plus a loop line in one direction only used in the AM peak.

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

 

[markymark2000]

Waterloo East has always had 4 platforms but until the rebuilding of London Bridge only 2 were in use there, plus a loop line in one direction only used in the AM peak.

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

Firstly because of cost and secondly because it makes sense and everyone here knows that if something makes sense, it is won't happen.
In an ideal world, Oxford Road would be rebuilt with 2 islands (1 island for westbound and 1 for eastbound). This then means trains can go into either platform and passengers won't have to move around the station if an alteration takes place.

 

[jfollows]

passengers won't have to move around the station if an alteration takes place.

... especially when they play the "let's change the platform which has been advertised for the last ten minutes from 4 to 3 just as the train is arriving so that you have to run across the footbridge and encounter the people pouring off the train in your direction" game as they used to do frequently, anyway!

 

[Glenn1969]

The last year there are figures for gave 28.3m passengers using the Airport (more than Manchester Piccadilly station) but only 4.645m passengers arriving at the Airport by train so they still have a way to go. Think MAN is the main long haul hub airport for Yorkshire and even the North East so not surprised a sizable percentage of users are from these areas.