Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[tpjm]

The problem with discussions about the timetable is that everybody is instantly blinded by their own individual needs (or the perceived needs of their local community), which is especially funny when reading comments from some on this forum who are quick to shoot stakeholders down ("everybody wants a train to Manchester Airport"), yet at the same time, seem to have become expert professional train planners overnight and suddenly know what every town needs and are confident to make wild suggestions of how to fix Central Manchester.

The various options for consultation were constructed by experts. You can't send all TPE services into Piccadilly*, nor is it simple to just 'revert' to the May 18 TT. Anything that is a viable option has been considered and the output is the options which were consulted. This thread should be about debating the options, not trying to solution an alternative option!


(*There isn't the capacity in the train shed - it was explored as part of another project last year and I have a 76 page capacity study that explains why it doesn't work.)

 

[Glenn1969]

"Pending" after 7 years surely = cancelled though. I'm worried that the TRU TWAO may meet the same fate. I also read somewhere that Sunak is holding up the IRP because he doesn't want to spend anywhere near as much as Johnson does

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What happens if the £billions don’t come?

Well this lot are a dab hand at making hollow commitments to kick the can down the road.

What i don't get on this section is why there has been no proposals from NR about what they can do to tweak up current infrastructure. So why is there no closing up signals running into Piccadilly and Oxford Rd to speed up platform reoccupation. Won't do anything for capacity due to other constraints but is worth 15-20 seconds which provides additional buffer in the timetable.

The reality is self help is all that's left for at least the rest of this decade whether the money appears or not and my view is at best its only going to happen with HS2 so this needs someone like Haines to give Tfn a reality check that they need to make the best of what they've got and stop wasting anymore time.

 

[Greybeard33]

We get left with the Dec 19 timetable.

Not according to the TfN paper:

3.19 Alternative Option
Given the congested nature of the infrastructure and the poor reliability related to the pre-covid timetable, the alternative option to endorsing the Option B+ timetable structure would result in the continuation of the Covid timetables. Further changes based on meeting demand at the time would only be possible if they did not have a significant impact on performance levels or the maximum number of trains accepted by Network Rail on the Castlefield Corridor.

4.2 The outcome of the assessment has demonstrated that the December 2019 timetable is deemed undeliverable due to its performance and passenger impact, and the Castlefield Corridor Congested Infrastructure Declaration on the number of the trains that should operate on the corridor.

 

[Purple Orange]

But the Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Llandudno services don't all need to run through Castlefield

That's the problem with Castlefield though - people want it to be a frequent "Metro" and also lots of long distance routes

London will use CrossRail for Reading/ Heathrow - Shenfield/ Abbey Wood services - if they took the Manchester approach then there'd be running hourly services from Heathrow to Chingford, Hertford, Kings Lynn, Clacton, Margate and Dover (as well as through trains from Cardiff/ Bristol/ Oxford to destinations in Essex) - I'm sure there would be some people who'd want those kind of cross-London links (especially given how much more significant Heathrow is than Manchester Airport), but they are keeping things simple and reliable instead

I agree that the Scotland, Newcastle, Llandudno services don’t need to go through Castlefield, but they do need to get to Manchester.

I would also say that people don’t want Castlefield to be both a metro line and a long distance line, but they want both in Manchester. That requires a new line, therefore the desire for Castlefield is to be either a metro line or an intercity line. I’d say it is more suited to being a metro.

However this all comes back to the issue that rail services through Manchester are having to use inadequate infrastructure for more than one purpose and two pieces of infrastructure are needed:

1. New terminal platforms
2. A new tunnel.

 

[kieron]

What happens if the £billions don’t come?

The money will take time. If no promise of money comes, then TfN probably won't approve the report. The government can still implement their timetable, but they won't be able to claim that there is any political consensus for it.

What the TfN committee members would like to do would be to be able to tell a constituent that this may not be the timetable a constituent would like, but that it will get better. The government's own MPs would like to be able to do much the same thing, so something may be agreed in the end.

This thread should be about debating the options, not trying to solution an alternative option!

Perhaps it was once. The consultation has closed now, and the Manchester Recovery Taskforce has published a report outlining their recommendation in light of the consultation responses. The options from the consultation have all been taken off the table now, so I don't see much point in discussing them further.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This thread has now been running for six months and has been an excellent talking shop and one always worth watching.

 

[The Planner]

Times North of Stoke were pretty much the same, although they added a second hourly stop at Macclesfield (which would still be possible). Journey time improvements were south of Stoke taking advantage of the new layout at Norton Bridge.

Generally I agree with you about turning back the clock and I would have preferred option C to the pre 2018 timetable, but think B+ is worse.

It was also about getting the XC out infront of the Avanti at Stone.

 

[Watershed]

So why is there no closing up signals running into Piccadilly and Oxford Rd to speed up platform reoccupation. Won't do anything for capacity due to other constraints but is worth 15-20 seconds which provides additional buffer in the timetable.

There are at Piccadilly, that's what the mid platform signals are for.

At Oxford Road there are (sort of) closing up signals in the westbound direction on platforms 3 and 4, but the platforms are so short that they're not of any great use as closing up signals (you are approach controlled if only cleared to the first signal).

The headway through the corridor between Piccadilly East Jn (at the southern end of platforms 13 and 14) and Water Street Jn (where the Ordsall Chord diverges) is 2 minutes.

The current signalling layout is, in almost all respects, the best you could possibly get out of the layout that exists. You wouldn't be allowed to put in the Oxford Rd signalling today, as it deviates from quite a few standards.

You don't get much lower than 2 minute headways on the National Rail network. In fact, the Thameslink core is, I believe the only place that does any better - having a 2 minute headway but with a 1.5 min reoccupation time at the stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

If no promise of money comes, then TfN probably won't approve the report. The government can still implement their timetable, but they won't be able to claim that there is any political consensus for it.

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

 

[wobman]

What is it particularly that makes you feel option C is superior to option A or B? I don't think much of the idea of sending the north Wales services via Altrincham (which option C does). Not only does it deprive north Wales of the airport service (which I don't think should really matter) but it also makes it a slower journey into Manchester*. Given that you could keep a fast journey into Manchester and still get the North Wales service off Castlefield by opting for option A, I think option C would be a very poor move.

* this is already a service I think should be faster, given the previous TfW's plans to re-route the Llandudno stoppers into Liverpool and the introduction of Northern's Leeds-Chester service there's potential to make the TfW just Manchester - Newton-le-Willows - Warrington Bank Quay - Chester - Fflint - Rhyl - Llandudno Junction - Bangor.

TFW pointed out any traincrew route training isn't possible until 2023 due to the ongoing traincrew training with new units and new traincrew.
All traincrew in options A & C would have to undertake extensive road learning, only 40 drivers at chester sign Cheshire lines. Plus the points you pointed out have shown that option B+ is the most preferable to TFW.

 

[Senex]

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

Good question. Surely they would just shew themselves as a body with no powers and no money, i.e. a pure talking shop, designed to give the impression of participation. Meanwhile the civil servants in London get on with what they want. Is this going to be the first really sharply clear example of just what a farce Johnson's "devolution" within England is (or did we already get that in the way Andy Burnham was dealt with over pandemic matters)?

 

[Glenn1969]

Good question. Surely they would just shew themselves as a body with no powers and no money, i.e. a pure talking shop, designed to give the impression of participation. Meanwhile the civil servants in London get on with what they want. Is this going to be the first really sharply clear example of just what a farce Johnson's "devolution" within England is (or did we already get that in the way Andy Burnham was dealt with over pandemic matters)?

One of TfN's demands is publication of the IRP in the next fortnight. Another is confirmation of funding for Vic- Staly wiring. Will at least either or both of these happen which could allow the impasse to be averted? As for their role I thought they had the power over franchise spec and implementation, but not the money to make these powers useful because unlike Scotland and Wales everything has to go to Whitehall for approval ?

 

[Greybeard33]

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

TfN is a statutory body, but its funding is entirely controlled by HM Treasury, and its only real power, in rail matters, is to provide advice to central government.

If ministers choose to ignore its advice, TfN has only limited options. It can try to make the best of a bad job, continuing to work behind the scenes to influence policy at the margins. But then it risks being seen as a front organisation for the DfT to hide behind, claiming that unpopular government policies have local support in the North.

Alternatively TfN can go public, attempting to embarrass/shame government into a policy change. But a government with a secure Commons majority can retaliate by defunding TfN, or could even legislate to abolish TfN altogether.

Grant Shapps has already attempted to sideline TfN by setting up the Northern Transport Acceleration Council, which includes Northern political leaders but has no role for the TfN executive officers and is directly controlled by the DfT.

 

[PR1Berske]

This thread has now been running for six months and has been an excellent talking shop and one always worth watching.

Threads like this one are handy because of this, I suppose, it's a good way to track the ups, downs and roundabouts of the processes to introduce *something* around the central core of Manchester. I think of threads like this as the "Greek chorus" running alongside the press releases and meeting agendas

 

[krus_aragon]

Threads like this one are handy because of this, I suppose, it's a good way to track the ups, downs and roundabouts of the processes to introduce *something* around the central core of Manchester. I think of threads like this as the "Greek chorus" running alongside the press releases and meeting agendas

I think, with the number of armchair experts here, we could even call it a Geek chorus!

 

[BrianW]

Presumably (!) there is a final final final date by which THE timetable must be decided and all the other actions worked forward and bck so as to make a final final ...DECISION date, and by whom/ what body. There's no shortage of fingers in the pie. I have no 'skin in the game' other than what this shows about the inability of 'the railways' to get on. Personally I like the idea of a 'metro line', something like London's Central or Metroplitan line with a strong frequent central core and less frequent 'branches' to the east and west. Simples. Of course if I lived in Blackpool, or Blackburn or Bury or Bolton I would like a train direct to Manchester Airport (or Liverpool or Leeds or Luton if that's where my flight goes from) at the time I want it. Not so simples. At least there's no General Election due for a while so MPs, Minister, Mayors can say their piece, be seen to speak up for 'their people', and move on. I think that whoever says what it's the MP for Richmond (Yorks) will decide in the long run. Expenditure delayed is expenditure 'saved'. And I think the current PM was quoted(in relation to sugar and salt) as being unenthusiastic about increasing taxes. So rearranging the deckchair trains on the Castlefield Corridor eventually will probably be about it. Bellyaching and whinging by rat-in-a-sack can't arrange an event in a brewery local napoleons will be blamed. Hoping to be wrong.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There are at Piccadilly, that's what the mid platform signals are for.

At Oxford Road there are (sort of) closing up signals in the westbound direction on platforms 3 and 4, but the platforms are so short that they're not of any great use as closing up signals (you are approach controlled if only cleared to the first signal).

The headway through the corridor between Piccadilly East Jn (at the southern end of platforms 13 and 14) and Water Street Jn (where the Ordsall Chord diverges) is 2 minutes.

The current signalling layout is, in almost all respects, the best you could possibly get out of the layout that exists. You wouldn't be allowed to put in the Oxford Rd signalling today, as it deviates from quite a few standards.

You don't get much lower than 2 minute headways on the National Rail network. In fact, the Thameslink core is, I believe the only place that does any better - having a 2 minute headway but with a 1.5 min reoccupation time at the stations.

Thameslink is my area of use and here you have a signal at the entrance to the platform, one about half way into the platform then one at the end as well as additional sections between stations which even in non ATO use allows trains to close up which is especially helpful when the timetable is slightly perturbated.

Going westbound its nearly c380m from MP349 to MP393 but presumably its got a shorter overlap but must be around 450m although I guess as most trains are less than 4 coaches that allows another train to proceed upto MP393 given dwell times at Piccadilly. Still a long run especially if your caught on a Red at MP349.

At Oxford Rd can't see any extra signals going Westbound i believe there Eastbound looking Open Time Train maps.

Eastbound from Deansgate its even worse with 500m + overlap from MP458 upto MP436/438 with no opportunity for a following train to close up or use the alternative Eastbound platform at Oxford Rd.

As i say extra sections won't help capacity but currently we need medium term fixes that maximise what can be shoved through the corridor for the next decade i suggest.

You also have to question that with TPWS is it possible to make a case to deviate from the standards given the low speeds.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

There are at Piccadilly, that's what the mid platform signals are for.

At Oxford Road there are (sort of) closing up signals in the westbound direction on platforms 3 and 4, but the platforms are so short that they're not of any great use as closing up signals (you are approach controlled if only cleared to the first signal).

The headway through the corridor between Piccadilly East Jn (at the southern end of platforms 13 and 14) and Water Street Jn (where the Ordsall Chord diverges) is 2 minutes.

The current signalling layout is, in almost all respects, the best you could possibly get out of the layout that exists. You wouldn't be allowed to put in the Oxford Rd signalling today, as it deviates from quite a few standards.

You don't get much lower than 2 minute headways on the National Rail network. In fact, the Thameslink core is, I believe the only place that does any better - having a 2 minute headway but with a 1.5 min reoccupation time at the stations.

Thameslink Core actually has 2 and half minute headway.

The best signalling headway on the network is the SEML at London bridge with 2 minute headway and 1.5 minute platform reoccupation at London Bridge.

 

[Watershed]

Thameslink Core actually has 2 and half minute headway.

The best signalling headway on the network is the SEML at London bridge with 2 minute headway and 1.5 minute platform reoccupation at London Bridge.

Right you are, misremembered that. Still it's a massive undertaking and, really, a reduction in headway isn't feasible or the right change on the corridor. More grade separation and platforms 15/16 is really what's needed.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Right you are, misremembered that. Still it's a massive undertaking and, really, a reduction in headway isn't feasible or the right change on the corridor. More grade separation and platforms 15/16 is really what's needed.

Yes but it ain't going to happen anytime soon so all parts of the industry need to self help to make the best of what is available.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Cheshire East (Craig Hughes): 3tph at Warrington West (only 1tph in B+); restoration/retention of direct services from Cheshire and N Wales to Manchester Airport (Option B+ removes the Liverpool - Airport service from the CLC line, and presumably Cheshire East is also concerned that the Task Force is proposing to continue work on the Option C diversion of the TfW N Wales service via the Mid Cheshire line, with a view to 2023 implementation).

I'm showing my bias here, but why is the Cheshire East guy against Knutsford (a town in the local authority of Cheshire East) receiving a 2nd tph? It's already been proven that the service from Chester to Manchester Airport only arrives/d at the airport after 10:30, making it useless for early morning arrivals and departures.

Oh well, at least he's thinking of the bigger picture and the greater good, so I will commend him on that.

 

[tbtc]

Of course, if it was London I think the £billions would come

Just like Thameslink 2000 was delivered in time for the year 2000, since London always gets what it wants when it wants?

(Manchester has had a lot more in the way of infrastructure spending in the past twenty years than most UK cities)

this all comes back to the issue that rail services through Manchester are having to use inadequate infrastructure for more than one purpose and two pieces of infrastructure are needed:

1. New terminal platforms
2. A new tunnel.

HS2 will create additional terminal capacity (by putting the longer distance expresses on new platforms, freeing up space in the existing shed) but where would a tunnel link though?

I don't think Manchester city centre is big enough to warrant an intermediate station (Pic and Vic are less than a mile apart), so what problem would a tunnel be trying to solve?

If Castlefield isn't suitable for the randomly pathed long distance services (that struggle with short dwells due to the end doors and are badly spaced since their paths are fixed at bottlenecks elsewhere) then putting these services through a tunnel is just dumping the same problem elsewhere

It just feels like, after the Windsor Link and the first Metrolink lines through central Manchester and the Ordeal Chord and the subsequent Second City Crossing, a tunnel would be yet another expensive cross-city line that was promised as the final piece in the jigsaw, then in a few years time we'd have further demands that Manchester get even more such projects, because we haven't addressed their addiction to trying to link everywhere in northern England to everywhere else in northern England

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

I'm beginning to wonder... they haven't delivered much (but are a handy lightening rod to divert anger away from central Government)

Thameslink is my area of use and here you have a signal at the entrance to the platform, one about half way into the platform then one at the end as well as additional sections between stations which even in non ATO use allows trains to close up which is especially helpful when the timetable is slightly perturbated

This was a very interesting post (I have nothing to add, just thanking you for posting it from your perspective)

 

[Watershed]

the Ordeal Chord

A rather apt typo

 

[Rhydgaled]

HS2 will create additional terminal capacity (by putting the longer distance expresses on new platforms, freeing up space in the existing shed) but where would a tunnel link though?

I don't think Manchester city centre is big enough to warrant an intermediate station (Pic and Vic are less than a mile apart), so what problem would a tunnel be trying to solve?

I don't see how a tunnel would be helpful in the context of the Castlefield problems either, except if you want to make the Castlefield corridor four tracks throughout (if I recall correctly the platform 15/16 plans still had one section of viaduct which couldn't be widened beyond 2 tracks).

Where I do see an argument for a tunnel, but not relevant to Castlefield, is Northern Powerhouse Rail. If there is to be a new line between Manchester and Leeds with through running to Liverpool then the optimum solution for NPR has to be underground through platforms at Piccadilly.

 

[Purple Orange]

HS2 will create additional terminal capacity (by putting the longer distance expresses on new platforms, freeing up space in the existing shed) but where would a tunnel link though?

I don't think Manchester city centre is big enough to warrant an intermediate station (Pic and Vic are less than a mile apart), so what problem would a tunnel be trying to solve?

If Castlefield isn't suitable for the randomly pathed long distance services (that struggle with short dwells due to the end doors and are badly spaced since their paths are fixed at bottlenecks elsewhere) then putting these services through a tunnel is just dumping the same problem elsewhere

It just feels like, after the Windsor Link and the first Metrolink lines through central Manchester and the Ordeal Chord and the subsequent Second City Crossing, a tunnel would be yet another expensive cross-city line that was promised as the final piece in the jigsaw, then in a few years time we'd have further demands that Manchester get even more such projects, because we haven't addressed their addiction to trying to link everywhere in northern England to everywhere else in northern England

Yes HS2 will provide the terminal platforms, so long as Liverpool & Leeds services can access them, but they do not need a tunnel through the centre to achieve that. The tunnel should not really be a heavy rail line, but a rather a metrolink line (not for running trams down).

As for endless infrastructure needs, that is a symptom of a growing city.

 

[kieron]

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

If TfN has no influence over transport issues in northern England, then it's not really there for anything. I'm sure its board members could all find something more productive to do with their time.

I'm showing my bias here, but why is the Cheshire East guy against Knutsford (a town in the local authority of Cheshire East) receiving a 2nd tph?

I can't find the quote from the Cheshire East councillor now, but it certainly sounded like it was being made on the behalf of other authorities.

There's nothing about Knutsford in the recommendation, though. Looking at Appendix A, the only change for stations in Cheshire East compared with the December 2019 timetable seems to be that the Crewe-Manchester-Liverpool train has been split.

 

[BrianW]

Which puts TfN in a difficult position - ie what are they there for ?

Indeed- no money , no purpose; just hot air. Reminds me of blast furnaces, Bessemer Convertors, the North. 'British' Steel- nationalised, denationalised, renationalised ... where is it now? Ravenscraig, Redcar, Consett, Corby, ... Tata ... byebye. What is TfN for? What does TfN STAND for- anything? What is transport for in the North? What is 'the North' considered by government to be for?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably (!) there is a final final final date by which THE timetable must be decided and all the other actions worked forward and bck so as to make a final final ...DECISION date, and by whom/ what body.

If the timetable is one of those consulted on (or very nearly so), the decision date for December 2022 implementation is a few months away.

If the timetable is something else, then the decision date for December 2022 is some time last year.

Thameslink is my area of use and here you have a signal at the entrance to the platform, one about half way into the platform then one at the end as well as additional sections between stations which even in non ATO use allows trains to close up which is especially helpful when the timetable is slightly perturbated.

It helps - but not as much as it should. AIUI TL Drivers are advised not to enter a platform with the mid platform signal at danger, so will wait at the signal in rear of the platform until it shows a YY or better.

When the ATO is on, it quite sensibly ignores this rule, and you will have a train entering the platform at linespeed with the tail lights of the departing train just off the ramp. I saw this happen at St Pancras last week, wry impressive.

Thameslink Core actually has 2 and half minute headway.

It actually has a maximum technical headway of 75 seconds. However the minimum station dwell of 45 seconds (as everything normally stops at all stations) adds to that to make the true headway 2 minutes.

However the normal planned station dwell is 60seconds, and with a little extra rounded to make the half minute, 2 1/2 minutes is therefore the timetabled gap between services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed- no money , no purpose; just hot air. Reminds me of blast furnaces, Bessemer Convertors, the North. 'British' Steel- nationalised, denationalised, renationalised ... where is it now? Ravenscraig, Redcar, Consett, Corby, ... Tata ... byebye. What is TfN for? What does TfN STAND for- anything? What is transport for in the North? What is 'the North' considered by government to be for?

Is that what I remember as being called a "Quango"?