Progress reported on development of infrastructure interventions for the Castlefield corridor - but what might they be?

[Greybeard33]

Peace seems to have broken out between the DfT and TfN, after the bust-up in July over linkage (or lack of) between near term timetable reductions and longer term infrastructure enhancements. From a paper "Manchester Services and Infrastructure Update" for the Rail North Committee meeting on 15 September:

The Department for Transport (DfT) has established a Task Force (Manchester Recovery Task Force) to develop solutions to the [Castlefield] problem including short-term timetable changes. Transport for the North is a member of the Task Force which allows us to inform its work including drawing on our evidence base and the needs of passengers in the North. In addition to the timetable work, Network Rail has been developing an infrastructure plan for the area which is currently divided into three tranches covering short, medium and long-term proposals. At the moment the programme has funding allocated for development work across all tranches and the first tranche is expected to be delivered in the next few years.

Following [the TfN Board meeting on 27 July 2021], a positive dialogue has taken place between [Rail North] Committee Members and the DfT. As a result of the positive progress Rail North Committee Members agreed to carry on the work developing the 2022 timetable (an enhanced version of the B+ timetable proposed by the Task Force). Members made it clear that, in parallel, the need to have an agreed roadmap that sets out how a longer-term solution will be developed, one that moves beyond what is possible with the 2022 timetable.

Work is taking place on a new form of collaboration between the DfT and Transport for the North that links the development of infrastructure to the roadmap of future timetable enhancements. An update on this joint work will be provided before the next phase of public consultation on the 2022 timetable.

Positive progress has been made on the identification of appropriate infrastructure intervention at Oxford Road Station (one of the main congestion pinchpoints and therefore a key part of the solution to allow services to be enhanced beyond the 2022 timetable). Transport for the North was able to secure agreement to commission modelling work to confirm the additional capacity and performance benefits of new platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly. The results of the modelling work are due by the end of September. As infrastructure solutions are developed there will need to be engagement with stakeholders on future service options through the collaborative working.

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/documents/s3081/Item%205%20Manchester%20Services%20and%20Infrastructure%20Update.pdf

This thread is for speculative ideas on what Network Rail's proposed infrastructure interventions at Oxford Road (and elsewhere around Manchester) might be. As per the original Northern Hub Piccadilly and Oxford Road Package C, for which the TWAO application is still, after several years, awaiting DfT approval? Or some cheaper alternative? And what timetable enhancements might be expected to result?

 

[Purple Orange]

If full Northern Hub had been delivered, what was the expected frequency through Castlefield meant to have been?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

So do we expect the money to exist for even a third track between Piccadilly and Oxford Road, or are we expecting some sort of fudge.

Wasn’t it supposed to be two Piccadilly-bound platforms, two Deansgate-bound platforms, and a middle reversing platform to prevent conflicting movements?

And Piccadilly being a simple island for each direction, and Mayfield being ripped out to create the approach throat?

Would like to see some sort of ‘big’ interventions at Slade Lane and Edgeley. Theoretically you need to rebuild Slade Lane > Edgeley as UF/DF/US/DS rather than the current US/UF/DF/DS. And sort out any freight capacity at Heaton Norris.

Whatever it is, I don’t envy whoever has to try and sort this out.

 

[Greybeard33]

If full Northern Hub had been delivered, what was the expected frequency through Castlefield meant to have been?

I believe the Northern Hub spec was 16tph including 2tph Trafford Park freight. But I doubt that Network Rail would now consider that the Package C scheme alone would support that frequency reliably, without any other interventions. The industry is sadder and wiser after the May 2018 timetable fiasco.

So do we expect the money to exist for even a third track between Piccadilly and Oxford Road, or are we expecting some sort of fudge.

Wasn’t it supposed to be two Piccadilly-bound platforms, two Deansgate-bound platforms, and a middle reversing platform to prevent conflicting movements?

And Piccadilly being a simple island for each direction, and Mayfield being ripped out to create the approach throat?

There has never been a plan for additional tracks between Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

The Package C scheme for Oxford Road extends Platforms 1 - 4 westward to 200m length, with signal overlaps sufficient to allow alternate occupation of 3 & 4 eastbound and 1 & 2 westbound. Plus all platforms made wheelchair accessible. The Platform 5 bay would be lost.

Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16 would be on a second island as you say, with alternate occupation of 13 & 14 eastbound and 15 & 16 westbound.

Frequency through the corridor would then be constrained by the pathing through the junctions either side (which is, of course, dependent on the service pattern and wider timetable constraints) rather than by the platform reoccupation time at Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

The Mayfield site is being redeveloped anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe the Northern Hub spec was 16tph including 2tph Trafford Park freight. But I doubt that Network Rail would now consider that the Package C scheme alone would support that frequency reliably, without any other interventions. The industry is sadder and wiser after the May 2018 timetable fiasco.

There has never been a plan for additional tracks between Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

The Package C scheme for Oxford Road extends Platforms 1 - 4 westward to 200m length, with signal overlaps sufficient to allow alternate occupation of 3 & 4 eastbound and 1 & 2 westbound. Plus all platforms made wheelchair accessible. The Platform 5 bay would be lost.

Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16 would be on a second island as you say, with alternate occupation of 13 & 14 eastbound and 15 & 16 westbound.

Frequency through the corridor would then be constrained by the pathing through the junctions either side (which is, of course, dependent on the service pattern and wider timetable constraints) rather than by the platform reoccupation time at Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

The Mayfield site is being redeveloped anyway.

Mystic @Ianno87 predicts that the study will suggest there is little point in doing significant interventions at Piccadilly and Oxford Rd unless a number of surrounding constraints are also addressed.