MEN article-"Northern Rail is crumbling from the inside out and things are only going to get worse"

[cactustwirly]

The two track section of the Brighton Main Line between Wivlesfield and Barcombe Tunnel Junction deals with 15 tph in the peaks with various destinations along the south coast 60 miles apart and feeding a further critical section in Central London (the Thameslink Core) which then serves 3 different radiating lines plus its own London Terminal (Victoria). Services include different stopping patterns, portion working with train lengths in excess of whats operated in Manchester. All on standard 4 aspect BR era signalling.
There needs to be careful studies as to why a short section of double track through Manchester is failing so badly before further investment is authorised.

My thoughts exactly, there are plenty of 2 track railways that handle more traffic than the Castlefield corridor.
In my opinion there should be a full investigation of why it all goes wrong.
Personally I think the vast expense required on platforms 15/16 is unecessary tbh, when platforms at stations like London Blackfriars handle more traffic with 2 platforms perfectly fine.

 

[Killingworth]

My thoughts exactly, there are plenty of 2 track railways that handle more traffic than the Castlefield corridor.
In my opinion there should be a full investigation of why it all goes wrong.
Personally I think the vast expense required on platforms 15/16 is unecessary tbh, when platforms at stations like London Blackfriars handle more traffic with 2 platforms perfectly fine.

The Network Rail link in post 269 above explains the problem quite well. Junctions and crossovers. The solutions are not at all simple and have been discussed ad nauseam in other threads.

 

[Mogster]

My thoughts exactly, there are plenty of 2 track railways that handle more traffic than the Castlefield corridor.
In my opinion there should be a full investigation of why it all goes wrong.
Personally I think the vast expense required on platforms 15/16 is unecessary tbh, when platforms at stations like London Blackfriars handle more traffic with 2 platforms perfectly fine.

Castlefield is nothing like Thameslink. It’s the mix of commuter, long distance services and regular freight that causes most of the problems. Then add in the presence of the airport for the North at one end and a large freight terminal at the other...

There’s really no alternative to adding extra capacity where possible, but that will be disruptive and expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Castlefield is nothing like Thameslink. It’s the mix of commuter, long distance services and regular freight that causes most of the problems. Then add in the presence of the airport for the North at one end and a large freight terminal at the other...

There’s really no alternative to adding extra capacity where possible, but that will be disruptive and expensive.

How many TPH of freight are there?

Other than that, it could be made more like Thameslink by changing the service patterns and exclusively using CAF units.

 

[Glenn1969]

1 or 2 with 3 in some hours

 

[Bletchleyite]

1 or 2 with 3 in some hours

Surprised there are so many. Are all to/from the CLC or could any be rerouted away?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To bring a little Christmas season lightening of thread mood that has sprang to mind after a nice festive mid-morning sherry or three when minds are more fertile, one could picture a joint Northern and TPE choir singing a rendition of the D:Ream song played during Labour Party meetings in the 1997 General Election campaign....."Things can only get better!!!" ...

 

[Glenn1969]

That number of freights is the total, not that number both ways. Mainly to/from Trafford Park Freight terminal I think

 

[Mogster]

Yeah, they seem to be always heading to and from Trafford Park Euroterminal.

There seems to be a path East and West most hours through Oxford Road and Piccadilly then out towards the airport line. The trains can be 50 containers or more long so they take up a lot of space.

Access is to the East only at Euroterminal is seems.

 

[cactustwirly]

Castlefield is nothing like Thameslink. It’s the mix of commuter, long distance services and regular freight that causes most of the problems. Then add in the presence of the airport for the North at one end and a large freight terminal at the other...

There’s really no alternative to adding extra capacity where possible, but that will be disruptive and expensive.

And? That was just an example, there are many examples of lines that see mixed traffic perfectly fine.
There must be other underlying reasons for the congestion, ie signal spacing, speed limits etc rather than blindly spending millions at Piccadilly building platforms that may not solve the problem, it may actually make it worse (increasing conflicts by the increasing the amount of junctions)

 

[Altfish]

And? That was just an example, there are many examples of lines that see mixed traffic perfectly fine.
There must be other underlying reasons for the congestion, ie signal spacing, speed limits etc rather than blindly spending millions at Piccadilly building platforms that may not solve the problem, it may actually make it worse (increasing conflicts by the increasing the amount of junctions)

There are lots of reasons.
Add to those already mentioned; the different types of trains - meaning passengers cannot stand in a particular place because they don't know where the doors will be on the train that appears. They don't even know how many carriages it may have. Add in putting ramps out for disabled people and catering trolleys, the 'dwell' time is crucial, add another platform in each direction and you eliminate most of that.

 

[Llama]

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

That report doesn't once mention traincrew relief which is a significant cause of unnecessary delay.

 

[Mogster]

There are lots of reasons.
Add to those already mentioned; the different types of trains - meaning passengers cannot stand in a particular place because they don't know where the doors will be on the train that appears. They don't even know how many carriages it may have. Add in putting ramps out for disabled people and catering trolleys, the 'dwell' time is crucial, add another platform in each direction and you eliminate most of that.

Too few carriages, too many trains are 2 car, too many carriages with narrow end doors.

At peak times a 2 car 150 pulling up at Oxford Road is a nightmare. Boarding takes ages. Some Bolton Blackpool North services have been expanded to 6 car 331s recently. The speed they can unload and load a large number of people is impressive. They accelerate out of the station like lightening. 15xs are like slugs by comparison and the 156s with end doors although comfortable are incredibly slow to board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And? That was just an example, there are many examples of lines that see mixed traffic perfectly fine.
There must be other underlying reasons for the congestion, ie signal spacing, speed limits etc rather than blindly spending millions at Piccadilly building platforms that may not solve the problem, it may actually make it worse (increasing conflicts by the increasing the amount of junctions)

How could it possibly increase the number of conflicts if they were just added as two simple splits with one island one way and one the other?

What could increase conflicts is building it and then increasing the number of trains. Which would be the wrong thing to do - it is needed as a resilience build - something which the UK seems to hate doing for some reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Too few carriages, too many trains are 2 car, too many carriages with narrow end doors.

At peak times a 2 car 150 pulling up at Oxford Road is a nightmare. Boarding takes ages. Some Bolton Blackpool North services have been expanded to 6 car 331s recently. The speed they can unload and load a large number of people is impressive. They accelerate out of the station like lightening. 15xs are like slugs by comparison and the 156s with end doors although comfortable are incredibly slow to board.

150s could board and alight just as quickly if the interior was changed to the same as 195s, i.e. 2+2 (ideally with 3+2 width seats) and standbacks. It appears from observation to be the standbacks that allow for very fast circulation. It'd be dead easy to turn /2s into that layout - remove the third seat (as Merseyrail did years ago), remove the side-facing ones by the vestibules and rearrange the grab poles and bulkheads.

The 2+2 319s (have Northern got any of those or have LNR got them all?) manage quite fast boarding even without standbacks due to the very wide aisle.

 

[cactustwirly]

How could it possibly increase the number of conflicts if they were just added as two simple splits with one island one way and one the other?

What could increase conflicts is building it and then increasing the number of trains. Which would be the wrong thing to do - it is needed as a resilience build - something which the UK seems to hate doing for some reason.

It depends on what the layout is, if it's just a new up/down islands then eastbound services would have to cross over the up lines to access the new 15 and vice versa.
Plus you've got the bottleneck of 4 lines going into 2 lines as well

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends on what the layout is, if it's just a new up/down islands then eastbound services would have to cross over the up lines to access the new 15 and vice versa.

It would make sense to have an up island (present 13/14) and a down island (15/16). No other arrangement would be sensible.

Plus you've got the bottleneck of 4 lines going into 2 lines as well

It's less of a bottleneck than not having the second platform.

 

[Mogster]

150s could board and alight just as quickly if the interior was changed to the same as 195s, i.e. 2+2 (ideally with 3+2 width seats) and standbacks. It appears from observation to be the standbacks that allow for very fast circulation. It'd be dead easy to turn /2s into that layout - remove the third seat (as Merseyrail did years ago), remove the side-facing ones by the vestibules and rearrange the grab poles and bulkheads.

The 2+2 319s (have Northern got any of those or have LNR got them all?) manage quite fast boarding even without standbacks due to the very wide aisle.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. 150s board slowly when they are used in 2 car formations which is happening too often now the venerable 142s are hitting the scrapper...

 

[Tomnick]

The two track section of the Brighton Main Line between Wivlesfield and Barcombe Tunnel Junction deals with 15 tph in the peaks with various destinations along the south coast 60 miles apart and feeding a further critical section in Central London (the Thameslink Core) which then serves 3 different radiating lines plus its own London Terminal (Victoria). Services include different stopping patterns, portion working with train lengths in excess of whats operated in Manchester. All on standard 4 aspect BR era signalling.
There needs to be careful studies as to why a short section of double track through Manchester is failing so badly before further investment is authorised.

The plain double track between the two stations isn’t the problem. I doubt it’d have a problem handling 15tph. What Keymer to Balcombe Tunnel doesn’t have is a major station with only one platform in each direction, and that’s one of the main killers - the dwell time is just too great, not helped by the fact that the island platform isn’t big enough for the crowds using it.

 

[43074]

My thoughts exactly, there are plenty of 2 track railways that handle more traffic than the Castlefield corridor.
In my opinion there should be a full investigation of why it all goes wrong.
Personally I think the vast expense required on platforms 15/16 is unecessary tbh, when platforms at stations like London Blackfriars handle more traffic with 2 platforms perfectly fine.

Well lots of long distance passenger, freight and local services thrown down a 2 track corridor with a multitude of flat junctions with their slowish speeds and conflicting moves everywhere might have something to do with it.

TL is very different as the only conflicts are at Blackfriars Junction (where the whole timetable is designed around parallel moves anyway) and Loughborough Junction where Kent bound trains head towards Denmark Hill etc. At the North end its all grade separated anyway.

 

[londonmidland]

With the Thameslink core you’ve only got one type of train and it’s also either 8 or 12 car. So passengers know exactly where to stand as well as rapid exit and entry thanks to the Class 700 design. Which is pretty much similar to the London Underground S7 and S8 stock.

Manchester station(s) couldn’t be any more different to the above explained. At Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13/14, you could have anything from a 2 car 15X or Pacer, to a 6 car 331. So there are loads of different types of trains with different door layouts, interior designs, as well as stopping positions along the platform.

Unless you get one uniform fleet of train (which will never happen), it’ll never be a simple and speedy process as what you have on the Thameslink core.

 

[yorksrob]

And? That was just an example, there are many examples of lines that see mixed traffic perfectly fine.
There must be other underlying reasons for the congestion, ie signal spacing, speed limits etc rather than blindly spending millions at Piccadilly building platforms that may not solve the problem, it may actually make it worse (increasing conflicts by the increasing the amount of junctions)

If you add a loop in each direction, it won't increase conflicts.

 

[jw]

That report doesn't once mention traincrew relief which is a significant cause of unnecessary delay.

It does include this on page 15.

It should be highlighted that this theoretical calculation of capacity assumes that a 2-minute dwell is achievable. Local observations demonstrate multiple trains within the hour exceeding this value due to passenger numbers and additional operational duties e.g. train crew changeovers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless you get one uniform fleet of train (which will never happen), it’ll never be a simple and speedy process as what you have on the Thameslink core.

But you pretty much could do that by reallocating Classes 195 and 331 so all Northern-operated Castlefield services used them, then putting other stock e.g. 158s onto non-Manchester or "via Victoria" express routes.

 

[londonmidland]

But you pretty much could do that by reallocating Classes 195 and 331 so all Northern-operated Castlefield services used them, then putting other stock e.g. 158s onto non-Manchester or "via Victoria" express routes.

That’s just Northern though. You’ve also got TransPennine Express with its various different rolling stocks, East Midlands Railway and Transport for Wales using platforms 13 and 14.

 

[modernrail]

It does include this on page 15.

I do wonder whether this is fertile ground for some early solutions. Could the DfT and TOCS agree rearrangement of crew movements to effectively ban changeovers on any Manchester through platforms and might this have a material impact?

 

[ivanhoe]

If we accept that we run too many trains for the infrastructure to handle, it would be a start. Let's rethink what can be handled in order to run a reliable railway.
In the meantime, let's plan for additional infrastructure to meet current and future demand and be bold in what needs to be run on current system. Northern and TPE will always be a poisoned challis for whoever runs it, currently.

 

[yorksrob]

The plain double track between the two stations isn’t the problem. I doubt it’d have a problem handling 15tph. What Keymer to Balcombe Tunnel doesn’t have is a major station with only one platform in each direction, and that’s one of the main killers - the dwell time is just too great, not helped by the fact that the island platform isn’t big enough for the crowds using it.

Quite. The double track section in Manchester isn't in itself all that unusual. The Government needs to re-commit to finishing the project and building the additional platforms at Picccadilly so that it becomes more like Haywards Heath.

 

[Philip]

That’s just Northern though. You’ve also got TransPennine Express with its various different rolling stocks, East Midlands Railway and Transport for Wales using platforms 13 and 14.

TfW will be using CAF 197s in a couple of years, Liverpool-Nottingham quite possibly 185s and the TPE stock will be 397s/68s/802s, all of which are/will be quick in acceleration.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s just Northern though. You’ve also got TransPennine Express with its various different rolling stocks, East Midlands Railway and Transport for Wales using platforms 13 and 14.

There are threads handling this in more detail, but TPE have 185s (doubled up), TfW will have CAF units and EMR will have 170s. Not doors in exactly the same place, but all units suitable for high densities. It would require some rejigging of what to use on what though.