Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[Bletchleyite]

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.

You jest, but LM did this "ad hoc" on a few occasions when things went very badly wrong, to allow units and crews to be moved back into the correct places for a decent evening peak. It did work and was worthwhile if a little inconvenient.

I wouldn't suggest leaving a daily 4 hour gap, but reductions in frequencies off peak (with peak services remaining as a higher frequency as peak extras for capacity) is a fairly solid idea for making things more punctual. If that was done, you could potentially follow the former LM approach of "always run everything in both peaks even if it runs very late, and just tidy it up during the reduced frequency/train length period in between".

 

[Greybeard33]

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).

Then perhaps you believe that prospective passengers should be required to furnish proof of their economic "need to travel" before they are sold a ticket into or through Manchester? That would solve Castlefield congestion at a stroke!

Of course, many of those "needy" commuters and business travellers work for businesses that are part of, or dependent on, the leisure industry. Logically, then, their travel should be discouraged too, because their work is encouraging demand for yet more unnecessary and polluting "discretionary" travel.

"Discretionary" travel tends to be spread through the day and the week. Thus it makes better use of costly assets that would otherwise earn revenue only in the Monday to Friday peaks. This helps keep down fares and subsidies, to the benefit of your "needy" travellers.

If the rail industry were foolish enough to discourage "discretionary" travel, one consequence would be more "discretionary" private car journeys clogging up the road network. This would delay essential freight (the vast majority of which travels by road), increasing transport costs and pollution to the economic disbenefit of everyone.

 

[Ianno87]

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).

Quite a few commuters seem to claim to "need" to travel to the office daily 5 days per week, when (with Agile working, laptops and Skype available to them) it is actually not necessary. Manchester, for example, does not seem to have spreading of peak demand in the same way is routine in London, for example. The peaks are very "peaky". Thou shalt arrive at desks at 0855, and leave desks at 1705 seens to be the culture.

"Discretionary" use is simply using infrastructure and assets required anyway for peak use in marginal time, that would otherwise be idle.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

No Manchester Airport is not similar to Luton Airport. There are plenty of long distance trains that arrive in time for an 0630 flight or depart after 2300.

For instance, the first arrival from Newcastle is at 0359. The last departure to York is at 0038 and the last to Piccadilly not until 0113.

 

[mmh]

Luton also has a much smaller catchment area. That it might be difficult to get to from somewhere is no reason to make Manchester harder to get from somewhere than it currently is.

 

[B&I]

Quite a few commuters seem to claim to "need" to travel to the office daily 5 days per week, when (with Agile working, laptops and Skype available to them) it is actually not necessary. Manchester, for example, does not seem to have spreading of peak demand in the same way is routine in London, for example. The peaks are very "peaky". Thou shalt arrive at desks at 0855, and leave desks at 1705 seens to be the culture.

"Discretionary" use is simply using infrastructure and assets required anyway for peak use in marginal time, that would otherwise be idle.

What time people have to be at their desks is not necessarily a voluntary matter for them. Where they go.on holiday and how they get there, rather more voluntary

 

[Greybeard33]

But today is not a good guide given that many commuters are still on holiday. Think you could check again on Monday when people have gone back to work

Well, I have checked the punctuality of the Preston to Victoria stopper again today, Monday 06 January.

Southbound, only 3 services were more than 5L at Salford Crescent (worst 7L). None of these delayed any services to the Castlefield corridor, the first of which is scheduled 13 minutes later (the service immediately following the Preston is from the Atherton line to Victoria, so can overtake).

Northbound, no services were more than 5L at Salford Crescent, so did not delay any services leaving the corridor, the first of which is scheduled 12 minutes later (several Preston services were themselves subsequently delayed at Bolton, due to catching up the preceding late running Airport to Blackpool).

Therefore I maintain that there is no evidence that the Preston to Victoria service contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. When 323s or 331s take over this service from the 319s, there will be much more padding in the timetable to enable recovery from delays, because of the higher acceleration of those units.

Canning this service, as the OP suggested, would in fact increase congestion in the corridor - the two Blackpool services, which do pass through the corridor, would become more crowded and so dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly would increase.

 

[daodao]

Well, I have checked the punctuality of the Preston to Victoria stopper again today, Monday 06 January.

Southbound, only 3 services were more than 5L at Salford Crescent (worst 7L). None of these delayed any services to the Castlefield corridor, the first of which is scheduled 13 minutes later (the service immediately following the Preston is from the Atherton line to Victoria, so can overtake).

Northbound, no services were more than 5L at Salford Crescent, so did not delay any services leaving the corridor, the first of which is scheduled 12 minutes later (several Preston services were themselves subsequently delayed at Bolton, due to catching up the preceding late running Airport to Blackpool).

Therefore I maintain that there is no evidence that the Preston to Victoria service contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. When 323s or 331s take over this service from the 319s, there will be much more padding in the timetable to enable recovery from delays, because of the higher acceleration of those units.

Canning this service, as the OP suggested, would in fact increase congestion in the corridor - the two Blackpool services, which do pass through the corridor, would become more crowded and so dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly would increase.

I proposed that there should be 2 tph (electric) from Blackpool to Piccadilly and beyond (including at least 1 tph to the Airport), calling at all stations except Moses Gate to Clifton inclusive, but I also proposed culling a number of other long distance non-Northern services from the Castlefield corridor to reduce congestion there, which is the key issue, along with trying to run too many short trains without adequate infrastructure capacity. I never suggested the Preston to Victoria service per se contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. There would be also be a fast service (electric, 1 tph) from Preston to Victoria, originating in Scotland.

 

[JonathanH]

There would be also be a fast service (electric, 1 tph) from Preston to Victoria, originating in Scotland.

A non-stop service from Preston to Victoria isn't much use for people at the intermediate stations. Anyway, it has been noted that without infrastructure work, diverting the TPE service from the Airport to Victoria is a non-starter.

 

[Philip]

York and Leeds simply don't need more than an hourly direct Airport frequency. I can see the benefits to keeping one of the direct trains, but there is no need for the alternate service to also go to the Airport.

I would terminate either the Redcar or Newcastle (whichever is most practical) in Piccadilly platform 5, which is long enough to take any TPE train and would also involve the least crossing of lines in the throat of all the longer platforms. Whichever route loses their direct connection would still have an easy change at either York, Leeds or Huddersfield (no steps or track crossing required).

Sheffield, Chester, Bolton, Wigan and Liverpool all have an hourly frequency to the Airport (ignoring the Chat Moss stopper which will probably be truncated to Victoria soon anyway), so there is no need for Leeds and York to have more.

 

[Greybeard33]

I would terminate either the Redcar or Newcastle (whichever is most practical) in Piccadilly platform 5, which is long enough to take any TPE train and would also involve the least crossing of lines in the throat of all the longer platforms. Whichever route loses their direct connection would still have an easy change at either York, Leeds or Huddersfield (no steps or track crossing required).

Platform 5 is indeed one of the longest platforms at Piccadilly, at 340m (14-car capacity!). But to access it from the East lines requires an across the throat move that blocks the Up Fast line to Stockport - exactly the kind of capacity restricting movement that the Ordsall Chord was built to eliminate. That is why services from the East lines now normally use Platforms 1 - 4.

Furthermore, P5 is regularly used by one or other of the CrossCountry services to Bournemouth and Bristol, and by the Northern Chester via Northwich service. Those both go on top of the Northern Stoke stopper, which has a 50 minute layover. Good luck trying to thread in a TPE turnaround amongst those three, without anything getting trapped!

 

[Greybeard33]

I proposed that there should be 2 tph (electric) from Blackpool to Piccadilly and beyond (including at least 1 tph to the Airport), calling at all stations except Moses Gate to Clifton inclusive, but I also proposed culling a number of other long distance non-Northern services from the Castlefield corridor to reduce congestion there, which is the key issue, along with trying to run too many short trains without adequate infrastructure capacity. I never suggested the Preston to Victoria service per se contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. There would be also be a fast service (electric, 1 tph) from Preston to Victoria, originating in Scotland.

I did not state, nor mean to imply, that you suggested the Preston to Victoria service per se contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. That suggestion came from @43074 in this post:

Remove the Preston to Manchester Victoria all stations service which takes 55 mins and has 5 mins turnaround at either end, and routinely has days where the entire service runs with delays.

However, I did say that you suggested canning the Northern Preston to Victoria stopper, as you have again confirmed. Your proposals would reduce the service from Preston to Manchester via Bolton from the current 4tph (3tph Northern: 2x6-car, 1x4-car; 1tph TPE 5-car, total 21 carriages/hour) to only 3tph (2tph Northern 6-car, 1tph TPE 5-car, total 17 carriages/hour).

This reduction in capacity would cause severe overcrowding, particularly between Bolton and Manchester (the TPE service skips Bolton in the peaks).

 

[daodao]

I did not state, nor mean to imply, that you suggested the Preston to Victoria service per se contributes to congestion in the Castlefield corridor. That suggestion came from @43074 in this post:

However, I did say that you suggested canning the Northern Preston to Victoria stopper, as you have again confirmed. Your proposals would reduce the service from Preston to Manchester via Bolton from the current 4tph (3tph Northern: 2x6-car, 1x4-car; 1tph TPE 5-car, total 21 carriages/hour) to only 3tph (2tph Northern 6-car, 1tph TPE 5-car, total 17 carriages/hour).

This reduction in capacity would cause severe overcrowding, particularly between Bolton and Manchester (the TPE service skips Bolton in the peaks).

There would be an additional 4 tph between Bolton and M/c (2 from Wigan and 2 from Clitheroe/Blackburn), giving 6 tph from Bolton to M/c; the Scotch express should not carry local passengers between these 2 points.

 

[Greybeard33]

There would be an additional 4 tph between Bolton and M/c (2 from Wigan and 2 from Clitheroe/Blackburn), giving 6 tph from Bolton to M/c; the Scotch express should not carry local passengers between these 2 points.

Those 4tph are already in the current timetable, so there would be a reduction of 1tph from the current 7tph between Bolton and Manchester.

 

[Greybeard33]

For those who do not follow that thread, in Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 post #776 @WatcherZero has posted a link to, and summary of, TfN's proposals to address Castlefield corridor congestion. These include a short term cull of 2tph by December 2020 and, longer term, infrastructure enhancements including an immediate go-ahead for the Piccadilly/Oxford Road "Package C" capacity scheme, grade separation of Ordsall Lane and Slade Lane Junctions, longer platforms at Manchester Airport, remodelling of Salford Crescent and (as suggested by @daodao on this thread) an eastern turnback at Manchester Victoria.

 

[Chester1]

For those who do not follow that thread, in Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 post #776 @WatcherZero has posted a link to, and summary of, TfN's proposals to address Castlefield corridor congestion. These include a short term cull of 2tph by December 2020 and, longer term, infrastructure enhancements including an immediate go-ahead for the Piccadilly/Oxford Road "Package C" capacity scheme, grade separation of Ordsall Lane and Slade Lane Junctions, longer platforms at Manchester Airport, remodelling of Salford Crescent and (as suggested by @daodao on this thread) an eastern turnback at Manchester Victoria.

I note that the "package C" will have a maximum capacity of 14tph rather than the original 16tph, reflecting a more conservative approach to infrastructure capacity. My concern with the project has been that running 16tph would just deal with one bottleneck but create others elsewhere. 14tph would only increase capacity by 1tph (i.e. compared 11tph + 2tph terminating at Oxford Road) but it would be more reliable.

 

[Greybeard33]

I note that the "package C" will have a maximum capacity of 14tph rather than the original 16tph, reflecting a more conservative approach to infrastructure capacity. My concern with the project has been that running 16tph would just deal with one bottleneck but create others elsewhere. 14tph would only increase capacity by 1tph (i.e. compared 11tph + 2tph terminating at Oxford Road) but it would be more reliable.

The TfN report seems somewhat ambiguous about the capacity numbers. It states (my bolding):

3.10 Action required to resolve the problem
At DfT’s request, Network Rail has now undertaken a review of the original ‘Package C’ scheme. It found:

a) that without the works at Oxford Road and Piccadilly it would be necessary to reduce the service to 14 trains per hour (tph) to allow ‘robust’ operation compared to the 16tph committed through the Northern & TPE franchise agreements – although how reliable such ‘robust’ operation would be has not been fully quantified; and
b) that there is no simpler and cheaper set of works on the Castlefield corridor itself that would robustly provide for 16tph and longer (8-car) trains.

This seems to imply that the current infrastructure has a capacity of 14tph, which "Package C" would increase to 16tph as originally promised. These figures presumably include the 2tph Oxford Road terminators.

The current service is 14tph (13tph passenger, 1tph freight) in the standard hour, reducing to 13tph in the evening peak when the Liverpool - Crewe service is removed for two hours. AFAIK the current 14tph includes all the services committed in the Northern and TPE franchise agreements except the hourly Northern Bradford - Manchester Airport. So possibly the "committed" 16tph includes the second freight?

But elsewhere, the report makes clear that the current infrastructure does not have the capacity to handle 14tph reliably:

3.17 Service changes/reductions
DfT has engaged Richard George to advise on what reductions and/or changes to train services through the Castlefield corridor might be necessary/least-bad as palliative measures for the interim period from December 2020 until any infrastructure enhancements are delivered.

These would clearly be reductions from the current 14tph. I suspect that the NR review, referred to in 3.10, was really saying that the corridor could reliably handle a maximum of 14tph (12tph through P13/14) without "Package C" if all the other infrastructure enhancements were done, per the NR Congested Infrastructure report.
https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

 

[WatcherZero]

The meeting livestreamed:
https://transportforthenorth.public..._interactive/462016/tab/webcast#Webcast_Video

Grant Schapps didn't turn up due to London business, sent the Rail Minister in his place however Shapps will still be in Leeds tomorrow.

Cheapest scheme an additional siding at Victoria would cost £10-12, Airport work 'Medium size', Package C 'Large'

General agreement in the proposed package and strategy from all members.

 

[Bletchleyite]

£10 to £12 for a siding? Let's have 10, I'll even volunteer to pay!

(I assume that's £10-12 million?)

 

[Philip]

How about diverting the Blackpool-Hazel Grove to run via Denton? With stops at Salford Central and Victoria it would reduce the journey time into the city centre from the Blackpool end and obviously one less train through Castlefield. Wouldn't need to cross the throat at Heaton Norris or Edgeley either.

The 331s wouldn't work but it'd be suitable for 769s or preferably 195s if enough are available.

 

[Greybeard33]

The meeting livestreamed:
https://transportforthenorth.public..._interactive/462016/tab/webcast#Webcast_Video

Grant Schapps didn't turn up due to London business, sent the Rail Minister in his place however Shapps will still be in Leeds tomorrow.

Cheapest scheme an additional siding at Victoria would cost £10-12, Airport work 'Medium size', Package C 'Large'

General agreement in the proposed package and strategy from all members.

I have now watched the webcast of the TfN Board meeting this afternoon (08 Jan). As @WatcherZero reported above, there was general support for the proposed infrastructure enhancements around Manchester, including "Package C". Also agreement that other pinch points around the North must not be forgotten, although Manchester is the priority. Some concerns were expressed about the extent of disruption during the construction works and the adequacy of mitigation planning. Dan Jarvis, Sheffield Mayor, emphasised that the Manchester infrastructure works must allow for a third fast Hope Valley service, once the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is complete.

Steve Rotheram, Liverpool Mayor, and the Cheshire East rep both had reservations about the secretive process for deciding which Castlefield corridor services should get the "temporary" chop in the short term "palliative" timetable fix (December 2020). They hinted that services from their regions might be high on the list under consideration - make of this what you will (Wilmslow, Alderley Edge and Crewe are all in Cheshire East; Southport and the western ends of the Chat Moss and CLC lines are in the Liverpool City Region). There was unanimous agreement that the timetable changes must not be an excuse for delaying the infrastructure work, but that it was unacceptable to allow the current unreliable timetable to continue until the infrastructure could be delivered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about diverting the Blackpool-Hazel Grove to run via Denton? With stops at Salford Central and Victoria it would reduce the journey time into the city centre from the Blackpool end and obviously one less train through Castlefield. Wouldn't need to cross the throat at Heaton Norris or Edgeley either.

The 331s wouldn't work but it'd be suitable for 769s or preferably 195s if enough are available.

769s if available, but not 195s. Avoidable diesels under the wires are (or should be) a no-no.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have now watched the webcast of the TfN Board meeting this afternoon (08 Jan). As @WatcherZero reported above, there was general support for the proposed infrastructure enhancements around Manchester, including "Package C". Also agreement that other pinch points around the North must not be forgotten, although Manchester is the priority. Some concerns were expressed about the extent of disruption during the construction works and the adequacy of mitigation planning. Dan Jarvis, Sheffield Mayor, emphasised that the Manchester infrastructure works must allow for a third fast Hope Valley service, once the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is complete.

Steve Rotheram, Liverpool Mayor, and the Cheshire East rep both had reservations about the secretive process for deciding which Castlefield corridor services should get the "temporary" chop in the short term "palliative" timetable fix (December 2020). They hinted that services from their regions might be high on the list under consideration - make of this what you will (Wilmslow, Alderley Edge and Crewe are all in Cheshire East; Southport and the western ends of the Chat Moss and CLC lines are in the Liverpool City Region). There was unanimous agreement that the timetable changes must not be an excuse for delaying the infrastructure work, but that it was unacceptable to allow the current unreliable timetable to continue until the infrastructure could be delivered.

I completely agree with all of this and it is good to see that it is now being taken seriously. Like LNR, though, it's a pity it has to wait nearly a year of dire service until it can be resolved.

 

[si404]

Would closing Deansgate station help? It's right by the junctions at the west end of the corridor and only a few trains stop there - that can't help throughput or reliability.

Perhaps replace it with NR platforms at Cornbrook.

 

[Greybeard33]

Would closing Deansgate station help? It's right by the junctions at the west end of the corridor and only a few trains stop there - that can't help throughput or reliability.

Perhaps replace it with NR platforms at Cornbrook.

See recent discussion in the Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16 thread.

 

[Greybeard33]

Split from Big Northern announcement due today (09/01)? [Not very big] thread per mods request:

- Talk of a meeting on the 23rd January to discuss which Northern services may be reduced or temporarily suspended to improve punctuality/resilience. Cheshire East and Merseyside most concerned about this (which would infer the Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport service appears to be the obvious one to be split and revert back to pre-May 2018 operation)

I have it on good authority from within Network Rail that work on this is well advanced. The way it was explained to me was "remove a couple of services" that currently pass through Manchester. Both Northern and TfW were mentioned.

I'd wager money that the Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport will be split back to pre May 2018 arrangements. Suspect the second will either be between Southport to Alderley Edge and Manchester Airport to Barrow.

Given TfW's chronic shortage of rolling stock, I guess an option might be to divert the N Wales service to terminate at Crewe, replacing the Chester to Crewe shuttle, instead of going to Manchester. The timings match at Chester and it would connect at Crewe with the TfW S Wales to Piccadilly via Stockport service, which would still be quicker than changing at Chester to the Northern Chester to Piccadilly via Northwich.

The Northern Chester to Leeds would have to call additionally at Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East to replace the TfW service.

Yeah. I've no more information than what I posted, but that was my thinking as well.

The solution I've heard mentioned is to divert the TFW to Stalybridge via Victoria replacing the Northern shuttle. There would also be major changes to Southport/Kirkby timings to accommodate this with the Southport to Stalybridge taking the path of the current Southport to Alderley through Bolton and the other Southport taking the path of the current Kirkby train via Atherton to Vic. There would then be a Kirkby to Bolton (or possibly Vic via Bolton)service. Alderley to Piccadilly would be stand alone and Lime St to Crewe would remain.

Interesting, thanks. But complex - would require a number of TfW drivers and conductors to learn the Vic - Stalybridge route.

I guess it would be helpful to Northern to split the Southport to Alderley rather than the Liverpool to Crewe, because it would enable more use of EMUs and free up DMUs to strengthen other services. But there would no doubt be uproar in Southport at losing their Piccadilly service again after the long battle to get it back! And objections from Chester and Wales to the loss of their hard won Airport service.

If the Kirkby service terminated at Bolton, the fast trains between Bolton and Manchester would be cut from 6 to 5, with risk of overcrowding in the peaks. And if the Southport to Stalybridge, in its new path, continued to serve as the Bolton to Salford Crescent stopper, it would delay the following fast services in both directions.

 

[Mathew S]

Split from Big Northern announcement due today (09/01)? [Not very big] thread per mods request:











Interesting, thanks. But complex - would require a number of TfW drivers and conductors to learn the Vic - Stalybridge route.

I guess it would be helpful to Northern to split the Southport to Alderley rather than the Liverpool to Crewe, because it would enable more use of EMUs and free up DMUs to strengthen other services. But there would no doubt be uproar in Southport at losing their Piccadilly service again after the long battle to get it back! And objections from Chester and Wales to the loss of their hard won Airport service.

If the Kirkby service terminated at Bolton, the fast trains between Bolton and Manchester would be cut from 6 to 5, with risk of overcrowding in the peaks. And if the Southport to Stalybridge, in its new path, continued to serve as the Bolton to Salford Crescent stopper, it would delay the following fast services in both directions.

Whatever gets cut, assuming something does, people are going to be irked. There's no good way to do this, only the least worst way.

 

[Philip]

Split from Big Northern announcement due today (09/01)? [Not very big] thread per mods request:











Interesting, thanks. But complex - would require a number of TfW drivers and conductors to learn the Vic - Stalybridge route.

I guess it would be helpful to Northern to split the Southport to Alderley rather than the Liverpool to Crewe, because it would enable more use of EMUs and free up DMUs to strengthen other services. But there would no doubt be uproar in Southport at losing their Piccadilly service again after the long battle to get it back! And objections from Chester and Wales to the loss of their hard won Airport service.

If the Kirkby service terminated at Bolton, the fast trains between Bolton and Manchester would be cut from 6 to 5, with risk of overcrowding in the peaks. And if the Southport to Stalybridge, in its new path, continued to serve as the Bolton to Salford Crescent stopper, it would delay the following fast services in both directions.

One easy solution to the latter point is for TPE's Scotland train to pick up the call left by the removal of the Alderley Edge service, removing the pick up and set down only restrictions at Bolton.

Perhaps the Preston-Victoria or one of the Ribble Valley services could become the stopper?

As for TfW running to Stalybridge, would it be easier to just have a crew change at Victoria or Chester, so that Victoria crew are in place to take the train to/from Stalybridge?

 

[krus_aragon]

As for TfW running to Stalybridge, would it be easier to just have a crew change at Victoria or Chester, so that Victoria crew are in place to take the train to/from Stalybridge?

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.

 

[Philip]

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.

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