Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Greybeard33]

You also don't want to put in a crossover straight off the platform end that sits in the overlap of the Platform 2 starter signal. Which would mean that a train approaching from Piccadilly would have to be held outside the station whilst a train departs Platform 3.

Suddenly, it isn't so simple...

That can be mitigated by a westbound mid platform signal on Platform 2 (I believe it already has an eastbound one for the same issue at the other end). The signalling changes would probably be the most complex part of the project.

 

[Ianno87]

That can be mitigated by a westbound mid platform signal on Platform 2 (I believe it already has an eastbound one for the same issue at the other end). The signalling changes would probably be the most complex part of the project.

....so any train approaching from Piccadilly whilst a train departs Platform 3 must then absolutely crawl to avoid stopping short in the platform. So you've just messed up the throughput achievable from Piccadilly.

 

[Greybeard33]

....so any train approaching from Piccadilly whilst a train departs Platform 3 must then absolutely crawl to avoid stopping short in the platform. So you've just messed up the throughput achievable from Piccadilly.

But much less disruptive than holding eastbound services at Deansgate, as is required now for a westbound departure from Oxford Road Platform 5 or 3.

A departing stopper will be calling at Deansgate, only one block section ahead. The following westbound will be able to complete platform duties at Oxford Road Platform 2 concurrently.

 

[Ianno87]

A departing stopper will be calling at Deansgate, only one block section ahead. The following westbound will be able to complete platform duties at Oxford Road Platform 2 concurrently.

No, including movement times from the approaching signals, a following train from Piccadilly would only likely be able to arrive at Platform 2 at Oxford Road pretty much as a preceding stopper is moving off from Deansgate.

From a headway perspective, this is worse than the present situation where a train can arrive in P2 from Piccadilly simultaneously to a train departing P5 towards Deansgate.

You're solving an Up direction conflicting move problem by making the Down direction headway worse. Peter, Paul and robbing is the expression that springs to mind.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Surely it just needs a crossover at the west end of Platform 3 and a buffer stop at the east end (to negate the signal overlap issue that currently prevents use of the full length of the platform). Platforms 2 & 4 become the through roads and 1 & 5 remain available for emergency use.

Hardly a massive rebuild.

Do we need a buffer stop? Last thing anybody would want is a train to need an ambulance one or other way and we be stuck with a whole (effectively) one platform each way.

The major rebuild is coming.

 

[The Planner]

Depends whether you also need to do station changes to avoid passenger flow being messed up too. Also would require trains be able to fit without going past the current mid-platform signal.

Plus all the OLE etc changes required would probably need more than a weekend.

Signaling commissioning will need to be wheels free I expect too, so add on another Sunday.

 

[Ianno87]

Signaling commissioning will need to be wheels free I expect too, so add on another Sunday.

And on a viaduct, so no laydown area for the S&C. Probably a crane in Whitworth Street for the job.

 

[Metrolink]

Option A:

View attachment 88622

Option B:

View attachment 88621

Option C:

View attachment 88620

for anyone who can't see the proposed service patterns


also current service pattern:

View attachment 88623

Option three definitely, diverting TFW through knutsford Is the best idea for sorting out the castle field corridor and adding hourly services max for most suburb stations or even half an hour is amazing. Also adding a link to Wigan and Southport from Stalybridge is better than the 20 minute shuttle and turns Ashton from a useless station in my opinion to one that is connected to network better.

Note: Cleethorpes to Liverpool on a Northern service is surprising I would think it would be run by TPEs 185s or 802s but I guess if it is accurate than we will have to deal with a semi-express 195s

 

[Greybeard33]

No, including movement times from the approaching signals, a following train from Piccadilly would only likely be able to arrive at Platform 2 at Oxford Road pretty much as a preceding stopper is moving off from Deansgate.

From a headway perspective, this is worse than the present situation where a train can arrive in P2 from Piccadilly simultaneously to a train departing P5 towards Deansgate.

You're solving an Up direction conflicting move problem by making the Down direction headway worse. Peter, Paul and robbing is the expression that springs to mind.

I prefer to believe the Network Rail experts, who clearly thought Paul's gain would be greater than Peter's loss:

C.04.02 Conflicting moves at Manchester Oxford Road
Any train that departs the bay platform here to head west is required to have a gap between both eastbound and westbound trains to depart without delaying other services (Figure 77). This is difficult to achieve due to a combination of the high service frequency and the complex interactions of all the other services. This is further compounded by the need to be immediately behind the preceding fast service to Liverpool (via the Cheshire Lines Committee (CLC) route) to prevent the next fast service catching the slow service before it reaches its destination. 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. This intervention was assumed to be in place as part of the analysis to eliminate a known existing constraint and allow the analysis to capture other potential constraints without wasting excessive amounts of limited time trying to make the Corridor TPR compliant.

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Castlefield-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

I suggest any further discussion of this should be continued in the Castlefield corridor thread.

 

[geoffk]

Apols if this has been covered, but I'm curious to know how you manage trains terminating at Warrington Central, from either direction. I'm aware that there is a siding or sidings at the Manchester end but don't know what their purpose is. At the Liverpool end you are of course straight on to a viaduct.

 

[Ianno87]

I prefer to believe the Network Rail experts, who clearly thought Paul's gain would be greater than Peter's loss:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Castlefield-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

I suggest any further discussion of this should be continued in the Castlefield corridor thread.

Where *exactly* in that quoted text does it say placing the crossover in the signal overlap is the solution? It specifically says a "non conflicting arrival and departure" (my underline)

It has almost certainly assumed that a proper overlap is provided without a speed/approach restriction for trains from the Piccadilly direction. It does not prescribe the exact track layout solution to achieve this.

I do agree that a centre turnback that does not have this restriction is better than current Platform 5, but *not* "just a crossover" which almost certainly imposes an operational restriction that I describe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apols if this has been covered, but I'm curious to know how you manage trains terminating at Warrington Central, from either direction. I'm aware that there is a siding or sidings at the Manchester end but don't know what their purpose is. At the Liverpool end you are of course straight on to a viaduct.

There are sidings specifically intended for terminating stopping services - this pattern ran in the 1990s as well. The stoppers come in, go to the sidings, the expresses both call, then the stoppers come back out again and go behind them.

 

[SuperNova]

I would divert either the Hull or Scarborough service via the Calder Valley. It could be via Dewsbury and Brighouse if you want to avoid the time penalty incurred by going via Bradford.

What need is there for this? Would go down like a lead balloon in the respective areas among stakeholders and passengers

Note: Cleethorpes to Liverpool on a Northern service is surprising I would think it would be run by TPEs 185s or 802s but I guess if it is accurate than we will have to deal with a semi-express 195s

.It'll be TPE - it's an error in the consultation.

 

[geoffk]

What need is there for this? Would go down like a lead balloon in the respective areas among stakeholders and passengers


.It'll be TPE - it's an error in the consultation.

Shouldn't Cleethorpes - Liverpool and Nottingham - Liverpool be the same operator? Not helpful that TPE offers First Class while EMR does not. Option 3 also has no use for platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, in fact nothing terminating at Victoria except in the peaks. For those of us living on the Calder Valley line, the performance risk with so many trains crossing Manchester has been an issue for some time but I suppose inevitable if major expenditure on infrastructure is to be avoided.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Shouldn't Cleethorpes - Liverpool and Nottingham - Liverpool be the same operator? Not helpful that TPE offers First Class while EMR does not. Option 3 also has no use for platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria.

In theory the document updated shows both services being TPE.

 

[The Planner]

Where *exactly* in that quoted text does it say placing the crossover in the signal overlap is the solution? It specifically says a "non conflicting arrival and departure" (my underline)

It has almost certainly assumed that a proper overlap is provided without a speed/approach restriction for trains from the Piccadilly direction. It does not prescribe the exact track layout solution to achieve this.

I do agree that a centre turnback that does not have this restriction is better than current Platform 5, but *not* "just a crossover" which almost certainly imposes an operational restriction that I describe.

The last sentence is also interesting, whilst clearly difficult, it doesn't mean a timetable solution cannot be found.

 

[tetudo boy]

A bit off-topic, but the idea of a Liverpool to Cleethorpes (Operated by TPE, there is an error on the service pattern map) sounds exciting.

 

[Killingworth]

Note: Cleethorpes to Liverpool on a Northern service is surprising I would think it would be run by TPEs 185s or 802s but I guess if it is accurate than we will have to deal with a semi-express 195s

It's wrong and that was confirmed on Friday. Quite why the attached correction still hasn't been substituted on the website is for the DfT to explain. In addition to correcting the colour code for the Cleethorpes-Liverpool route to show it as TPE the TfN logo colours are also corrected.

However, it needs us all to feed our thoughts into the consultation itself. Whatever is written here won't count unless it's also submitted by 10th March to; [email protected]

 

[LowLevel]

Shouldn't Cleethorpes - Liverpool and Nottingham - Liverpool be the same operator? Not helpful that TPE offers First Class while EMR does not. Option 3 also has no use for platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, in fact nothing terminating at Victoria in the peak. For those of us living on the Calder Valley line, the performance risk with so many trains crossing Manchester has been an issue for some time but I suppose inevitable if major expenditure on infrastructure is to be avoided.

I would expect EMR to start offering first class at some stage.

 

[Ianno87]

The last sentence is also interesting, whilst clearly difficult, it doesn't mean a timetable solution cannot be found.

You mean the last sentence:

This intervention was assumed to be in place as part of the analysis to eliminate a known existing constraint and allow the analysis to capture other potential constraints without wasting excessive amounts of limited time trying to make the Corridor TPR compliant.

?

Yes, I see what you mean. Clearly Platform 5 is something to be planned around, so that was eliminated for the purpose of the analysis. The analysis doesn't get as far as saying it definitely must be fixed (though clearly it would add more flexibility if it was, but whether it is absolutely necessary is not proven).

 

[Greybeard33]

The last sentence is also interesting, whilst clearly difficult, it doesn't mean a timetable solution cannot be found.

Clearly a timetable solution can be found for Oxford Road Platform 5. The baseline timetable has one, and presumably so do all three of the options.

Equally clearly, however, a late running eastbound arrival can conflict with a departure from P5, causing delays to escalate. So the timetable would become more resilient if this potential conflict could be eliminated by a central turnback, at some point in the future.

 

[Ianno87]

Clearly a timetable solution can be found for Oxford Road Platform 5. The baseline timetable has one, and presumably so do all three of the options.

As did the pre-May 18 timetable, which operated well enough with a similar number of trains to the options.

 

[Watershed]

Even adding an additional crossover enabling turnback from 3 without conflicting with Up arrivals into 4 would help. I see no reason to eliminate the existing crossover at the west.

The flexibility to choose where the conflict occurs - on arrival or on departure, and on which line (Down or Up) - is rather valuable in its own right.

It does seem a bit illogical how buffer stops suddenly make it OK to eliminate the margin of safety afforded by overlaps. It would seem a shame to deliberately destroy Oxford Rd's "15 and 16" equivalent. Days like today (along with many engineering work timetables) prove the utility of having 2 through platforms per direction on the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Jozhua]

I responded to it. Basically I like option C the most and I'm glad to see reality is actually being accepted. (You can't run more trains without building more track.)

I'm bummed out that both the hope valley services will be departing from Mordor (13/14), but the half hourly intervals is quite a nice prospect, so I think I can cope with that.

4 services per hour on the Bolton corridor will be nice too!

 

[Ianno87]

The flexibility to choose where the conflict occurs - on arrival or on departure, and on which line (Down or Up) - is rather valuable in its own right.

It takes a very good signaller indeed to choose the platform for a terminating train in anticipation of a departure overlap conflict 10 or more minutes later, given that infrastructure should be designed to account for trains not presenting minute-perfectly (the reason why we're talking about this in the first place!)

Hence designing a solution that doesn't have an overlap conflict at all is the target.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem a bit illogical how buffer stops suddenly make it OK to eliminate the margin of safety afforded by overlaps.

Because the likelihood of running into buffers is much lower than the likelihood of a SPAD, because they're that bit more obvious, plus your route knowledge will include not being able to go past that point ever? Also they will slow a train down so have the effect of an overlap.

The idea of losing "15/16" would be an issue. I would suggest that if 3 became a west facing terminal platform, then crew changes on Castlefield would absolutely have to stop.

 

[Ianno87]

It does seem a bit illogical how buffer stops suddenly make it OK to eliminate the margin of safety afforded by overlaps. It would seem a shame to deliberately destroy Oxford Rd's "15 and 16" equivalent. Days like today (along with many engineering work timetables) prove the utility of having 2 through platforms per direction on the Castlefield corridor.

Because the likelihood of running into buffers is much lower than the likelihood of a SPAD, because they're that bit more obvious, plus your route knowledge will include not being able to go past that point ever? Also they will slow a train down so have the effect of an overlap.

The idea of losing "15/16" would be an issue. I would suggest that if 3 became a west facing terminal platform, then crew changes on Castlefield would absolutely have to stop.

New buffer stops also need overruns beyond them anyway in modern standards, unless a derogation is sought, (with justifucation).

So P3 buffer stops may have the effect of considerably shortening the platform.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New buffer stops also need overruns beyond them anyway in modern standards, unless a derogation is sought, (with justifucation).

So P3 buffer stops may have the effect of considerably shortening the platform.

Just to clarify, then, does this mean you oppose the Oxford Road "proper" rebuild, which will surely have some similar issues?

 

[Ianno87]

Just to clarify, then, does this mean you oppose the Oxford Road "proper" rebuild, which will surely have some similar issues?

AIUI the "proper" rebuild effectively extends the platforms westwards (hence losing Platform 5) to provide the length full overlaps in both directions, so avoids the issues I describe.

The "just a crossover" solution may end up involving so much work to make it operable that you may as well just do the full rebuild anyway.

 

[Watershed]

It takes a very good signaller indeed to choose the platform for a terminating train in anticipation of a departure overlap conflict 10 or more minutes later, given that infrastructure should be designed to account for trains not presenting minute-perfectly (the reason why we're talking about this in the first place!)

Hence designing a solution that doesn't have an overlap conflict at all is the target.

It's not a question of anticipation, it's just that if you can choose whether the conflict on departure is with the Up or Down line, that helps avoid a lot of low level delays. Low level delays easily snowball.

Of course, the TPRs also need to be comprehensively revised - e.g. it's absolute lunacy that it's "OK" for the CLC stopper to depart plat 5 just 1 minute after an Up arrival in plat 4 from across the Pennines.

Because the likelihood of running into buffers is much lower than the likelihood of a SPAD, because they're that bit more obvious, plus your route knowledge will include not being able to go past that point ever? Also they will slow a train down so have the effect of an overlap.

Point taken, but any new installation of a buffer stop will require modern standards to be met, which still means an overlap. So then you're back to shortening your turnback, which isn't much use.