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

[notlob.divad]

For better or for worse there is a strategic plan to link the Airport to the rest of the north of England and (in case we have all forgotten) the Ordsall chord was put in place to enable this to happen for Yorkshire services WITHOUT CROSSING THE THROAT OF PICCADILLY.

Exactly, the Ordsall Chord is the biggest White Elephant the UK government has financed in my lifetime. The report linked to above makes that clear when it specifically points to the Airport-Bradford and the Airport-Leeds services ie (the ones that use the new chord) as causing the most conflict points of all the services in the Manchester area.

 

[keith1879]

Exactly, the Ordsall Chord is the biggest White Elephant the UK government has financed in my lifetime. The report linked to above makes that clear when it specifically points to the Airport-Bradford and the Airport-Leeds services ie (the ones that use the new chord) as causing the most conflict points of all the services in the Manchester area.

Agreed ...but nevertheless the chord has achieved exactly what it was intended to do. As regards the biggest white elephant I think you could find a great many more in the military fields from TSR2 onwards.

 

[notlob.divad]

Or would some west facing terminal platforms at Picc be of more use?

They maybe, in terms of providing connectivity but would pressumably cost more. A Central terminal bay at Oxford road could be constructed by sacrificing Platform 3 as a through platform, and playing with the junctions at either end.

The whole report is based around the premise that "we know the terminal bays at Oxford Road cause a problem" so there we will assume we have fixed that so that we can actually identify some useful learning points.

 

[tomuk]

They maybe, in terms of providing connectivity but would pressumably cost more. A Central terminal bay at Oxford road could be constructed by sacrificing Platform 3 as a through platform, and playing with the junctions at either end.

The whole report is based around the premise that "we know the terminal bays at Oxford Road cause a problem" so there we will assume we have fixed that so that we can actually identify some useful learning points.

The plan for Oxford Road, as per Northern Hub would be to lose the bay and extend/straighten the other four platforms so they could be fully utilised by longer trains. Services could then terminate in the centre platforms 2&3 using a scissors crossover installed at the west end.

 

[Mogster]

Something has to give. Blackpool and Wigan trains always used to stop at Victoria. There is a free bus service to get you across town. Salford Central provides an alternative place to stop trains.

There’s a crisis in car over usage, people are addicted, city centres are grid locked every day. With self driving cars on the horizon there’s the nightmare scenario of people not being able to park in city centres and leaving their cars to circulate...

We need to convince people public transport is a convenient alternative. They’re not going to be convinced if the only services go to a station more than a mile away across town. Metrolink isn’t on London Underground levels of speed and convenience. People want to go to Castlefield and with the new S Manchester developments that demand is only going to increase.

 

[Bantamzen]

People need to go to the Oxford Road corridor. It’s South Manchester nowhere near Victoria.

A lot has been made of the Oxford Road to South Manchester corridor, as it it were somehow disconnected from the rest of Manchester's transport network. But where do the buses on this corridor originate from? It certainly isn't Oxford Road, so there must be a connection with Metrolink and/or Victoria somewhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot has been made of the Oxford Road to South Manchester corridor, as it it were somehow disconnected from the rest of Manchester's transport network. But where do the buses on this corridor originate from? It certainly isn't Oxford Road, so there must be a connection with Metrolink and/or Victoria somewhere?

Piccadilly Gardens, mostly. But by the time you've gone to Victoria, walked to Piccadilly Gardens and taken a bus from there, and it's wound its slow way through poorly-designed streets, your journey has suddenly got about 20-30 minutes longer than if you just got off the train at Oxford Road. And you've had to pay a bus fare (or tram fare to St Peter's Square) rather than 10 minutes' walk.

Victoria isn't quite in a wasteland to the same extent as it used to be - but it is less convenient for fairly large swathes of Manchester. If anything (and here goes the S-Bahn-Manchester talk again - sorry @Bantamzen) I'd say it is more important that local services serve Castlefield (including Deansgate if viable) and that longer-distance services would be fine serving Victoria because whacking 20 minutes on a 2 hour "IC" journey is far less of an issue than whacking 20 minutes on a local commute.

Indeed, should we consider rebuilding Victoria (if the Arena failed because of the proposed alternative out east you've got an amazing chance to flatten it and start again) as a major regional long distance interchange, and turning Castlefield into Manc-Thameslink as I proposed as a 15-16 alternative, with everything from 13 going to the Airport and only local services from Liverpool, Warrington C and Blackpool North feeding into it from the west, and maybe even Kirkby/Southport/Wigan via Atherton instead of it going to Vic?

After all, this is basically what it used to do pre-Windsor Link, with Oxford Road basically being two end-on termini, with the DC Alty and diesel CLC lines serving it from one side and 25kV EMUs from the south from the other way?

It's all very well to say "so, use the tram/bus around Manchester like you do in London", but this is a vaguely similar magnitude of issue as those who were using Southeastern services into London Victoria and all of a sudden found their fast trains (a) getting more expensive, and (b) going to a station 2 miles north of where most of them wanted to go, costing more for a Travelcard and saving them no time whatsoever?

 

[Greybeard33]

The report mentioned by tomuk:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

Having read and digested the report, I think it is important to point out that the Train Service Specification that was modelled is not that of the current timetable, nor that currently proposed for December 2019, nor that of May 2018 (either before or after rewriting for the electrification delay). There are significant differences between the modelled and actual service pattern, as follows:

• The current Northern Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere via Chat Moss service is omitted (no explanation why - this was a franchise requirement)
• The current Northern Leeds to Chester via Victoria service is also omitted (again, this was a franchise requirement)
• There is no mention of the franchise requirement for a Liverpool to Leeds Northern Connect service from December 2019
• There is no mention of the franchise requirement for a 4th hourly Northern service on the Atherton line
• A 2tph Northern service from the Airport to Bradford via the Ordsall Chord is added (there was a franchise requirement for 1tph from December 2019, but this is not being implemented)
• All trains are assumed to be at least 6x26m long. This effectively prevents the use of the mid-platform signals at Oxford Road and increases the platform reoccupation time, making Oxford Road the bottleneck rather than Piccadilly. It also prevents permissive double occupation of Victoria platforms, again reducing capacity. In reality, Northern will continue running some 3- and 4-car trains through Manchester for the foreseeable future
• It is assumed that any Northern service can be paired with/interwork with any other Northern service, at both Victoria and Manchester Airport. In reality this is impractical with the current mix of rolling stock (15x, 195, 319, 323, 331)
  
• A DMU service between Victoria and Buckshaw Parkway (as per the May 2018 timetable) is assumed, in order that it can be paired at Victoria with a service to Rochdale or Stalybridge. In the current timetable, that service has been replaced by the Preston to Victoria EMU service, which has to terminate at Victoria due to the lack of wires to the east

• As mentioned in previous posts, it is assumed the CLC stoppers terminate in a central turnback siding at Oxford Road, instead of the P5 bay. This would avoid the throat crossing moves that currently constrain capacity, but would require track and signalling changes (additional crossover from P3)

• Consequent to the above, the modelled frequency through the Castlefield corridor is 15tphpd (13tphpd through Piccadilly) rather than the current 14tphpd (12tphpd through Piccadilly). One of the current paths to the Chat Moss line is omitted, but two paths to the Ordsall Chord added, greatly increasing the junction conflicts

In view of these differences between the modelled and real worlds, I think the report should be treated with caution when prioritising possible changes to train service patterns and/or infrastructure interventions to improve punctuality performance. The Recommendations section does warn that:

Further analysis will need to be undertaken to identify whether any proposed intervention agreed delivers the required output, the possible interventions listed here may only be partially possible and it will require further analysis work to establish the effectiveness of the intervention.

 

[Mogster]

Piccadilly Gardens, mostly. But by the time you've gone to Victoria, walked to Piccadilly Gardens and taken a bus from there, and it's wound its slow way through poorly-designed streets, your journey has suddenly got about 20-30 minutes longer than if you just got off the train at Oxford Road. And you've had to pay a bus fare (or tram fare to St Peter's Square) rather than 10 minutes' walk.

Victoria isn't quite in a wasteland to the same extent as it used to be - but it is less convenient for fairly large swathes of Manchester. If anything (and here goes the S-Bahn-Manchester talk again - sorry @Bantamzen) I'd say it is more important that local services serve Castlefield (including Deansgate if viable) and that longer-distance services would be fine serving Victoria because whacking 20 minutes on a 2 hour "IC" journey is far less of an issue than whacking 20 minutes on a local commute.

Indeed, should we consider rebuilding Victoria (if the Arena failed because of the proposed alternative out east you've got an amazing chance to flatten it and start again) as a major regional long distance interchange, and turning Castlefield into Manc-Thameslink as I proposed as a 15-16 alternative, with everything from 13 going to the Airport and only local services from Liverpool, Warrington C and Blackpool North feeding into it from the west, and maybe even Kirkby/Southport/Wigan via Atherton instead of it going to Vic?

After all, this is basically what it used to do pre-Windsor Link, with Oxford Road basically being two end-on termini, with the DC Alty and diesel CLC lines serving it from one side and 25kV EMUs from the south from the other way?

It's all very well to say "so, use the tram/bus around Manchester like you do in London", but this is a vaguely similar magnitude of issue as those who were using Southeastern services into London Victoria and all of a sudden found their fast trains (a) getting more expensive, and (b) going to a station 2 miles north of where most of them wanted to go, costing more for a Travelcard and saving them no time whatsoever?

Yes that covers it.

Just departed Oxford Road 17 minutes late on a crush loaded 2 car 142. Loading took 10 minutes...

 

[edwin_m]

After all, this is basically what it used to do pre-Windsor Link, with Oxford Road basically being two end-on termini, with the DC Alty and diesel CLC lines serving it from one side and 25kV EMUs from the south from the other way?

Just to clear up a point of information, that was rather longer before the Windsor Link than you are suggesting! The double-ended terminating situation was (according to Wikipedia) from 1959 to 1971, after which the Altrincham line was converted to 25kV and trains ran through from destinations south of Manchester. Windsor Link services were added in the late 1980s and the Altrincham service became Metrolink a few years after that.

 

[Bantamzen]

Piccadilly Gardens, mostly. But by the time you've gone to Victoria, walked to Piccadilly Gardens and taken a bus from there, and it's wound its slow way through poorly-designed streets, your journey has suddenly got about 20-30 minutes longer than if you just got off the train at Oxford Road. And you've had to pay a bus fare (or tram fare to St Peter's Square) rather than 10 minutes' walk.

Welcome to Leeds. Try connecting to the various bus services in and out of Leeds from the station, there are quite a lot of people that get off a train, walk over to City Square then get a bus or walk to York Street (adjacent to the bus station) to make onward connections. And Leeds doesn't have a fairly regular tram, but cross city services that can often be twenty minutes between them despite in theory being every few minutes. To put it mildly it is grim.

Of course this isn't Manchester's problem, however Manchester has a mayor so he could focus on improving cross-city connectivity, multi-modal ticket acceptance etc etc. These problems are way easier to solve in Manchester than Leeds.

Victoria isn't quite in a wasteland to the same extent as it used to be - but it is less convenient for fairly large swathes of Manchester. If anything (and here goes the S-Bahn-Manchester talk again - sorry @Bantamzen) I'd say it is more important that local services serve Castlefield (including Deansgate if viable) and that longer-distance services would be fine serving Victoria because whacking 20 minutes on a 2 hour "IC" journey is far less of an issue than whacking 20 minutes on a local commute.

And sorry to bring long distance services back in, but Manchester does not have the luxury of dedicating part of it's network to purely local services. You've got the Victorians to initially thank for that, but the subsequent running down of Victoria and the closure of others to thank for that. And then, yes here we go, there is the small matter of the airport expanding. Like it or not, more people are going to be travelling through Manchester to go there, and many will go by train, lots coming from outside Manchester. Given the predictions of going from 30 million to 50 million, you simply cannot ignore it because if you do you either end up with even more platform chaos, or the roads / motorways around Manchester locking solid. The airport expansion is a key part of how Manchester wants to move further forward economically, so until CrossManc becomes a reality, airport punters will be moved along Castlefield.

Indeed, should we consider rebuilding Victoria (if the Arena failed because of the proposed alternative out east you've got an amazing chance to flatten it and start again) as a major regional long distance interchange, and turning Castlefield into Manc-Thameslink as I proposed as a 15-16 alternative, with everything from 13 going to the Airport and only local services from Liverpool, Warrington C and Blackpool North feeding into it from the west, and maybe even Kirkby/Southport/Wigan via Atherton instead of it going to Vic?

After all, this is basically what it used to do pre-Windsor Link, with Oxford Road basically being two end-on termini, with the DC Alty and diesel CLC lines serving it from one side and 25kV EMUs from the south from the other way?

None of that would resolve ever growing numbers of punters going to the airport being tipped out at Victoria & ending up with the scrum at Piccadilly.

It's all very well to say "so, use the tram/bus around Manchester like you do in London", but this is a vaguely similar magnitude of issue as those who were using Southeastern services into London Victoria and all of a sudden found their fast trains (a) getting more expensive, and (b) going to a station 2 miles north of where most of them wanted to go, costing more for a Travelcard and saving them no time whatsoever?

Manchester already has one of the best public transport networks outside of the capital, and it still has room to expand further. A lot of the problems, including I suspect the all important Oxford Road - South Manchester corridor could be resolved by an extension of Metrolink. That Oxford Road was ignored / forgotten by the planners developing the tram network is either an indication that they messed up, or that (hold onto your hat) it wasn't considered that important. But whatever the reason Manchester has the financial clout (helped by the airport development) to do something about it. However Manchester's limited heavy cross connections are not for the locals alone, at least not yet.

So sorry but Manc-Bahn remains a pipe dream, and in the meantime we "Not Locals" will continue to dare to use Manchester as a handy route through to places like the airport. In fact, do you know what, I am going to do it myself on Sunday! So there...

 

[The Planner]

It also highlights something which I feel to be a concern: that a greater emphasis than was warranted was placed on sectional timings and therefore on a flawed model of reality at the bottom of the current timetabling systems than on local knowledge. That the sectional timings were wrong seemed not to have been questioned properly but instead taken as a true representation of reality. I think this is something we have seen again and again in other places.

Whilst I don't disagree with what you are saying, it is a massive can of worms that no one likes opening. Once you try and start fixing the deficiencies then all of a sudden trains don't fit, it is the proverbial elephant in the room.

 

[tomuk]

Manchester already has one of the best public transport networks outside of the capital, and it still has room to expand further. A lot of the problems, including I suspect the all important Oxford Road - South Manchester corridor could be resolved by an extension of Metrolink. That Oxford Road was ignored / forgotten by the planners developing the tram network is either an indication that they messed up, or that (hold onto your hat) it wasn't considered that important. But whatever the reason Manchester has the financial clout (helped by the airport development) to do something about it. However Manchester's limited heavy cross connections are not for the locals alone, at least not yet.

I'm sorry but Metrolink isn't the answer, it is too slow and too low capacity. Also Deansgate\Castelfield Metrolink stop is about 400m from Oxford Road so I wouldn't say that area has been forgotten.

 

[tomuk]

Having read and digested the report, I think it is important to point out that the Train Service Specification that was modelled is not that of the current timetable, nor that currently proposed for December 2019, nor that of May 2018 (either before or after rewriting for the electrification delay). There are significant differences between the modelled and actual service pattern, as follows:

• The current Northern Manchester Airport to Barrow/Windermere via Chat Moss service is omitted (no explanation why - this was a franchise requirement)
• The current Northern Leeds to Chester via Victoria service is also omitted (again, this was a franchise requirement)
• There is no mention of the franchise requirement for a Liverpool to Leeds Northern Connect service from December 2019
• There is no mention of the franchise requirement for a 4th hourly Northern service on the Atherton line
• A 2tph Northern service from the Airport to Bradford via the Ordsall Chord is added (there was a franchise requirement for 1tph from December 2019, but this is not being implemented)
• All trains are assumed to be at least 6x26m long. This effectively prevents the use of the mid-platform signals at Oxford Road and increases the platform reoccupation time, making Oxford Road the bottleneck rather than Piccadilly. It also prevents permissive double occupation of Victoria platforms, again reducing capacity. In reality, Northern will continue running some 3- and 4-car trains through Manchester for the foreseeable future
• It is assumed that any Northern service can be paired with/interwork with any other Northern service, at both Victoria and Manchester Airport. In reality this is impractical with the current mix of rolling stock (15x, 195, 319, 323, 331)
  
• A DMU service between Victoria and Buckshaw Parkway (as per the May 2018 timetable) is assumed, in order that it can be paired at Victoria with a service to Rochdale or Stalybridge. In the current timetable, that service has been replaced by the Preston to Victoria EMU service, which has to terminate at Victoria due to the lack of wires to the east

• As mentioned in previous posts, it is assumed the CLC stoppers terminate in a central turnback siding at Oxford Road, instead of the P5 bay. This would avoid the throat crossing moves that currently constrain capacity, but would require track and signalling changes (additional crossover from P3)

• Consequent to the above, the modelled frequency through the Castlefield corridor is 15tphpd (13tphpd through Piccadilly) rather than the current 14tphpd (12tphpd through Piccadilly). One of the current paths to the Chat Moss line is omitted, but two paths to the Ordsall Chord added, greatly increasing the junction conflicts

In view of these differences between the modelled and real worlds, I think the report should be treated with caution when prioritising possible changes to train service patterns and/or infrastructure interventions to improve punctuality performance. The Recommendations section does warn that:

I agree that there are variances between the model and reality. Like all models this is the case things have to be simplified to as the reports says to gain useful learning points.
There is also the question of what the real world should be/is. CAF stock is late. PRM mods/refurbs are late. Bolton eletrification was late. Atherton Line/Stalybridge electrification cancelled\never approved. No Pic 15/16 and Oxford Road rebuild. Salford Central rebuild. 769s late. Getting all 323s instead of 319s.

As I have said before this is big failure of the industry (DFT/NR/TOCS/ROSCOs/National/Local Government), you can't provide fast frequent direct services to Oxford Road\Picc\Airport form every station in the North, as promised in the Franchises without the accompanying investments and delivery thereof.

 

[Ianno87]

The more obvious thing to do, is divert the longer distance services to alternate destinations, so they only stop at 1 central Manchester station (Victoria). People can then use the local Manchester transportation systems, (Buses/Trams/Local metro stopping services) to get to more specific bits of Manchester. Just like everyone has to do when they visit London or most of the other cities across the world.

Not necessarily all that common - Hamburg, Berlin, Brussels, Cologne (as examples) 'disperse' over multiple stations.

When done properly, it helps operationally by spreading boarding/alighting passengers across stations so its not all concntrated at one (with effects on dwell times).

Fully agree with your reading of it. In fact, it seems more to point towards the removal of platforms at Oxford Road, to give 1 full length in each direction plus a central turnback facility would be more useful than 15/16

A simpler layout (less pointwork/platforms) if anything might make what's left that bit faster and actually pump things through that bit quicker.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree that there are variances between the model and reality. Like all models this is the case things have to be simplified to as the reports says to gain useful learning points.
There is also the question of what the real world should be/is. CAF stock is late. PRM mods/refurbs are late. Bolton eletrification was late. Atherton Line/Stalybridge electrification cancelled\never approved. No Pic 15/16 and Oxford Road rebuild. Salford Central rebuild. 769s late. Getting all 323s instead of 319s.

As I have said before this is big failure of the industry (DFT/NR/TOCS/ROSCOs/National/Local Government), you can't provide fast frequent direct services to Oxford Road\Picc\Airport form every station in the North, as promised in the Franchises without the accompanying investments and delivery thereof.

Indeed, I think the point of the report is not 'lets try and replicate what everyone wants to run' but 'what is it that we're trying to run, where are the constraints, and what is credibly possible with what we do have?'

 

[keith1879]

Indeed, I think the point of the report is not 'lets try and replicate what everyone wants to run' but 'what is it that we're trying to run, where are the constraints, and what is credibly possible with what we do have?'

Exactly.....decide what we want to do....or rather where people want to go.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm sorry but Metrolink isn't the answer, it is too slow and too low capacity. Also Deansgate\Castelfield Metrolink stop is about 400m from Oxford Road so I wouldn't say that area has been forgotten.

Too slow & too low capacity, really? Please, try commuting through Leeds sometime, then tell me Metrolink is too slow & too low capacity. Seriously, what exactly is Manchester wanting, a high speed, high capacity, serve everywhere from everywhere else in Greater Manchester service and stuff the rest of the country that might want to pass through? Frankly I am seriously starting to believe the money spent there has gone to waste, especially when places like Leeds have been knocked back for a tram & even trolley bus scheme, and the only infrastructure scheme getting funding is a Bradford - Leeds cycle-way, which if you know the area you'll understand why it is seen as an utter waste of money.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The report mentioned by tomuk:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

I am not trying to be a smartarse but is there a two page A4 version for Grant baby?

 

[Ianno87]

I am not trying to be a smartarse but is there a two page A4 version for Grant baby?

That would be the Executive Summary.

 

[tomuk]

Too slow & too low capacity, really? Please, try commuting through Leeds sometime, then tell me Metrolink is too slow & too low capacity. Seriously, what exactly is Manchester wanting, a high speed, high capacity, serve everywhere from everywhere else in Greater Manchester service and stuff the rest of the country that might want to pass through? Frankly I am seriously starting to believe the money spent there has gone to waste, especially when places like Leeds have been knocked back for a tram & even trolley bus scheme, and the only infrastructure scheme getting funding is a Bradford - Leeds cycle-way, which if you know the area you'll understand why it is seen as an utter waste of money.

I don't disagree that local transport in Leeds is crap but trains can carry more passengers and faster then trams. I would suggest in Manchester that the Bury/Altrincham lines would have been better remaining as trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All trains are assumed to be at least 6x26m long. This effectively prevents the use of the mid-platform signals at Oxford Road

Didn't know there were any, but I have never seen two trains in a platform at Oxford Road, so this is really of no relevance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree that local transport in Leeds is crap but trains can carry more passengers and faster then trams. I would suggest in Manchester that the Bury/Altrincham lines would have been better remaining as trains.

The massive success of Metrolink says otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily all that common - Hamburg, Berlin, Brussels, Cologne (as examples) 'disperse' over multiple stations.

Hamburg has the "Altonaer Verbindungsbahn" (Altona-Dammtor-Hbf) which, while rather better-developed, is not at all unlike Castlefield and operates on very similar principles. Dammtor is very similar to Oxford Road in how it works (albeit with IC and S-Bahn segregated) and just happens to be up the road from the university....which has a bus route between it and the main area of residences which is of a similar level of busy-ness as Oxford/Wilmslow Road albeit operated very differently.

Not at all dissimilar but much more investment making it all that bit better.

 

[Eccles1983]

Didn't know there were any, but I have never seen two trains in a platform at Oxford Road, so this is really of no relevance.

Again this is wrong.

The entire point of the mid platform signals is not to permit 2 trains to occupy the platform. It's to ensure that a train can depart and clear the overlap whilst another is signalled in from Deansgate.

You have just pushed the problem one section back. So now trains are blocking down toward Salford Crescent/Salford Central on both the Bolton and chat moss lines.

So you've stuffed 3 junctions instead of the one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why, then, are 6x26m trains an issue here, as it's not about stacking them up? Once they've cleared the signal you can signal another in. The length of the train is surely relatively unimportant here.

 

[Greybeard33]

Again this is wrong.

The entire point of the mid platform signals is not to permit 2 trains to occupy the platform. It's to ensure that a train can depart and clear the overlap whilst another is signalled in from Deansgate.

You have just pushed the problem one section back. So now trains are blocking down toward Salford Crescent/Salford Central on both the Bolton and chat moss lines.

So you've stuffed 3 junctions instead of the one.

Quite. I was referring to the following sentence in the report:

Furthermore, due to the current signalling configuration at Oxford Road, any train longer than 80m (4 x 20m) cannot arrive simultaneously with a departing train. Therefore, despite having two platforms in each direction, for planning purposes there is effectively only one.

Many of the trains using Oxford Road, now and in the medium term future, are/will be 80m or shorter (2x150, 175, 185, 195, 319, 323, 331/0, 769). When one of these is berthed at the front of the platform, the following train can be cleared up to the mid-platform signal. Normally the first train will depart before the following one enters the platform, allowing the mid platform signal to clear before the second train reaches it.

But the report assumes that all trains are 156m long and so occupy the full length of the platform. The following train cannot then be cleared forward from Deansgate until the previous one has departed Oxford Road, increasing the headway as @Eccles1983 says. So the report models Oxford Road headways as worse than achievable through Piccadilly P13/14, which is not actually the case.

What this highlights is that the introduction of TPE Mk5A sets and 802s, longer than 80m, in place of the 72m 185s, is likely to worsen Oxford Road platform reoccupation times, in addition to any effect on dwell times from the end carriage doors. Likewise when Northern introduces 6-car 323s and 4/6-car 331s in place of 80m 319s.

 

[Killingworth]

A major part of the problem is signalling that's still based on Victorian operating practices. Those who drive on roads are not subject to such block systems. If there's nothing in front we can drive up to the speed limit (and some beyond!) and should take account of corners, gradients other traffic and weather. There are lots of accidents, mostly minor, but there are millions of vehicles making countless accident free journeys every day. In heavy traffic they'll close up. At faster speeds on motorways they should be further apart.

Clearly trains can't run like that. However, one train creeping along 100-200 yards behind another at 5-10 mph should be possible in congested sections like this. How far can this be done now, and how much more could be achieved? Surely modern technology should be able to permit safe closing up?

I compare this congestion bottleneck with Totley Tunnel where there's a block of 4 miles between Totley Tunnel East and Grindleford (as laid down in 1893), another bottleneck particularly impeding that Liverpool - Norwich service!

Trouble is signalling systems take decades to change and each advance is overtaken before it can be expensively introduced across a fraction of the network!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course there used to be permissive working on 13/14 - you could easily stack up 3 2-car DMUs in one of them and often did. Indeed, part of the start of the present rot was when the midplatform signals were installed in about 2000 or thereabouts.

I don't recall hearing of masses of accidents as a result of this?

 

[notlob.divad]

The plan for Oxford Road, as per Northern Hub would be to lose the bay and extend/straighten the other four platforms so they could be fully utilised by longer trains. Services could then terminate in the centre platforms 2&3 using a scissors crossover installed at the west end.

I think it is best to describe that as what was the plan. Given there has been no progress on Piccadilly 15/16 and O-Road re-modelling, it would be pretty fair to say those projects have been shelved. The report above is quite explicit that it is looking at the current problems in a fresh light without taking into account previous planned infrastructure projects. However it specifically mentions a central bay turnback at O-Road.