Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[jayah]

The best way of stimulating demand is to increase frequency. The railway has significant fixed costs which apply regardless of the level of traffic, so in the long term the best thing to do is to take a short term hit on profitability/subsidy levels to stimulate traffic growth. Making significant reductions in subsidy levels, or increases in profit, is much easier from that point on.

Manchester has another option, which is to provide that extra frequency using Metrolink rather than Northern. Ramping up frequencies is much cheaper on Metrolink since everything is cheaper - the vehicles, the staffing, and most importantly the infrastructure. Adding another 10tph through Victoria or the Castlefield corridor would cost a lot of money, but you could probably get away without any real changes on the street-running section. In the worse case scenario you just need to build a Third City Crossing, which would then allow higher frequencies on other profitable branches so the financial impact wouldn't be too bad. Then, with the released capacity on the NR infrastructure, you can optimise the heavy rail services for revenue maximisation.

Yes the railway has very high fixed costs, but the last thing to do is declare the network full with 100 seat trains and then go and double those costs by upscaling the infrastructure and building brand new lines.

 

[edwin_m]

Please tell me which routes are still running 100 seat trains into Manchester in the peaks, once the changes committed by the Northern franchise are completed.

As far as I'm aware none of the individual services that pass through Oxford Road runs any more than twice an hour. It's the number of them that converge there that creates the capacity problem.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes the railway has very high fixed costs, but the last thing to do is declare the network full with 100 seat trains and then go and double those costs by upscaling the infrastructure and building brand new lines.

Which, if you understand my comment, is why it's efficient to hand off your low-capacity local services over to a system which is more suited for them. Metrolink can justify spending hundreds of millions on new and converted lines because they know passenger revenue would cover the costs. Line-of-sight tram technology can deliver incredible frequencies for tiny costs compared to NR simply due to the inherent technical differences between trams and trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please tell me which routes are still running 100 seat trains into Manchester in the peaks, once the changes committed by the Northern franchise are completed.

As far as I'm aware none of the individual services that pass through Oxford Road runs any more than twice an hour. It's the number of them that converge there that creates the capacity problem.

I must admit, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordsall Curve was a mind-numbingly stupid idea, in cramming more services onto that congested piece of line.

 

[Chester1]

The best way of stimulating demand is to increase frequency. The railway has significant fixed costs which apply regardless of the level of traffic, so in the long term the best thing to do is to take a short term hit on profitability/subsidy levels to stimulate traffic growth. Making significant reductions in subsidy levels, or increases in profit, is much easier from that point on.

Manchester has another option, which is to provide that extra frequency using Metrolink rather than Northern. Ramping up frequencies is much cheaper on Metrolink since everything is cheaper - the vehicles, the staffing, and most importantly the infrastructure. Adding another 10tph through Victoria or the Castlefield corridor would cost a lot of money, but you could probably get away without any real changes on the street-running section. In the worse case scenario you just need to build a Third City Crossing, which would then allow higher frequencies on other profitable branches so the financial impact wouldn't be too bad. Then, with the released capacity on the NR infrastructure, you can optimise the heavy rail services for revenue maximisation.

Don't forget that there will be an extra 10tph through the city centre once Manchester Aiport services are extended to Crumpsall and then the Trafford Park line is opened. Cornbrook to St Peters Square will run at 45tph! There is not any spare capacity in addition to this on any part of the city centre network. The only extensions that are technically viable are Middleton via Crumpsall and new lines South East of Piccadilly through extending the two terminating services or the Etihad terminating service. Building a third city crossing is far from simple or cheap.

I've been wondering about using the Met like this for a while. The new franchise operator is apparently planning to introduce a new signalling/comms/'Tram Management System' which, if done right, could easily allow 60-90sec service frequency on much of the system.

Also think they missed a trick with the Oxford Road roadworks over the last couple of years. With the uni and hospitals down there, they should have extended the Met to MCO and down Oxford Road imho. Certainly a higher priority than the just begun Trafford Park line.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Oxford Road trams have been done to death on the other transport sub forum and on Skyscrappercity. It has been conclusively proven that trams cannot match the capacity provided by the buses along this corridor. About 40% of the Trafford Park line has been paid for by companies based at the park which substantially changes the cost benefit equation for TfGM.

I must admit, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordsall Curve was a mind-numbingly stupid idea, in cramming more services onto that congested piece of line.

Perhaps in isolation but the capacity of the corridor is being increased by the maximum capacity of the chord (4tph). If either P15 and 16 are built or Oxford Road and Castlefield junction are rebuilt then the reliability issues caused by Ordsall won't matter. Its main goal was to remove 2tph of TPE services crossing Piccadilly station throat and this will be achieved from December.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Don't forget that there will be an extra 10tph through the city centre once Manchester Aiport services are extended to Crumpsall and then the Trafford Park line is opened. Cornbrook to St Peters Square will run at 45tph! There is not any spare capacity in addition to this on any part of the city centre network. The only extensions that are technically viable are Middleton via Crumpsall and new lines South East of Piccadilly through extending the two terminating services or the Etihad terminating service. Building a third city crossing is far from simple or cheap.

A 3CC would be simpler and cheaper than an equivalent uplift in capacity on the NR side. In my opinion, if such a radical increase were necessary, then it would be done by moving faster services into a new tunnel (so that only one expensive underground station is needed, rather than lots). Even then that could only do so much.

Tram-trains coming in from the Salford direction would need a new city crossing as the existing infrastructure isn't designed to handle that direction, even if the capacity were available. My point is that the Metrolink network can make extra lines and service improvements financially viable far more easily than heavy rail services, so it'll be the go-to solution for quite a while. A 3CC capable of taking over the Atherton line would presumably result in a cascade of service changes and other improvements becoming feasible or necessary. With the nature of Metrolink, I would be very, very surprised if the end result were financially weaker than what's possible with a 2CC alone.

 

[158756]

Tram-trains coming in from the Salford direction would need a new city crossing as the existing infrastructure isn't designed to handle that direction, even if the capacity were available. My point is that the Metrolink network can make extra lines and service improvements financially viable far more easily than heavy rail services, so it'll be the go-to solution for quite a while. A 3CC capable of taking over the Atherton line would presumably result in a cascade of service changes and other improvements becoming feasible or necessary. With the nature of Metrolink, I would be very, very surprised if the end result were financially weaker than what's possible with a 2CC alone.

The Atherton line's operating costs would probably work for Metrolink. The problem (aside from the so far dismal tram train trial in Sheffield) would be the costs of connecting it to the city centre - there's no obvious surface route from Salford Crescent to the Irwell at ground level without stuffing journey times, road traffic flow, or both. And given the line is going to get 4 tph from Northern, causing further congestion, I'm not sure a frequency vs journey time trade off works very well.

Obviously building any new line across the city for trams would be much cheaper than heavy rail, but I think it'd still require investment which wouldn't be quickly recouped through increased revenue or reduced costs.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A 3CC would be simpler and cheaper than an equivalent uplift in capacity on the NR side. In my opinion, if such a radical increase were necessary, then it would be done by moving faster services into a new tunnel (so that only one expensive underground station is needed, rather than lots). Even then that could only do so much.

Tram-trains coming in from the Salford direction would need a new city crossing as the existing infrastructure isn't designed to handle that direction, even if the capacity were available. My point is that the Metrolink network can make extra lines and service improvements financially viable far more easily than heavy rail services, so it'll be the go-to solution for quite a while. A 3CC capable of taking over the Atherton line would presumably result in a cascade of service changes and other improvements becoming feasible or necessary. With the nature of Metrolink, I would be very, very surprised if the end result were financially weaker than what's possible with a 2CC alone.

I'm surprised how often the possibility of running tram-trains on the Atherton line crops up considering the difficulties that such a scheme would have to overcome.

The Salford end of the route would need to somehow be connected to the existing Metrolink network with a link probably having to connect to the mainline somewhat to the west of Salford Crescent. This would need on-street running along roads which are already heavily congested.

Until (if ever!) the route to Southport is electrified then the Atherton line is also the Southport line to minimise the number of slower diesels running via Bolton. This would mean true tram-train operation on the Atherton line with the electrically powered light-rail vehicles running alongside the heavy-rail diesels; this is not the model (eventually) being tested in Sheffield. Also it is still intended to electrify the Westhoughton line so if tram-trains were to go all the way to Wigan they would need to be capable of 25kv operation: again not the Sheffield model.

Since the Atherton line would still need to carry at least 3tph heavy-rail while providing a decent frequency feed into the Metrolink network there would need to be a significant upgrade to the capacity of the line. The current Northern franchise will eventually see 4tph on the Atherton line at least as far as Wigan of which 2 will be for Southport, 1 for Kirkby and 1 Wigan terminator, but if the Skelmersdale rail-revival takes off I can see it becoming 2 Southports and 2 Skelmersdales. As such any tram-train service will be over and above those meaning the need for at least partial reinstatement of 4-tracking on the route starts to look a very good idea! To reduce the amount needed I would look for any tram-train service to leave the Atherton line to the west of Hag Fold and resume street-running to reach Leigh. This could also allow the heavy-rail diesels to run non-stop east of Atherton.

It might actually be easier to provide that additional inward flow from the Salford direction by a new all on-street route, much like the existing Ashton line, and serve Pendleton and Pendlebury.

 

[notlob.divad]

I must admit, the more I think about it the more I think the Ordsall Curve was a mind-numbingly stupid idea, in cramming more services onto that congested piece of line.

This is also always in the back of my mind. It is the insistance of running trains to the airport that causes it. The issues of the piccadilly throat could have been solved without it. Keep warrington on TPE network by sending 1 to Chester and send the other to Blackpool.

I will wait to see in the long term what reliability down this corridor is, but I would not be surprised of in a year we are lookong at another re-cast to temove services and increase reliability

 

[edwin_m]

I'm surprised how often the possibility of running tram-trains on the Atherton line crops up considering the difficulties that such a scheme would have to overcome.

The Salford end of the route would need to somehow be connected to the existing Metrolink network with a link probably having to connect to the mainline somewhat to the west of Salford Crescent. This would need on-street running along roads which are already heavily congested.

The Crescent was a huge road; this and its continuation into Salford have been substantially downgraded so although expensive I think it would be possible given the will.

Until (if ever!) the route to Southport is electrified then the Atherton line is also the Southport line to minimise the number of slower diesels running via Bolton. This would mean true tram-train operation on the Atherton line with the electrically powered light-rail vehicles running alongside the heavy-rail diesels; this is not the model (eventually) being tested in Sheffield. Also it is still intended to electrify the Westhoughton line so if tram-trains were to go all the way to Wigan they would need to be capable of 25kv operation: again not the Sheffield model.

Bi-modes for Southport or Skelmersdale, running via Bolton, might be a solution here. With no realistic prospect of joining it to Metrolink, it probably makes sense to feed as many trains as possible through Bolton to provide a comparable frequency and enough capacity.

The Sheffield tram-trains do have 25kV capability, although they won't be using it until/unless 25kV extends towards Rotherham. Converting the Atherton line to Metrolink operation would be much cheaper than retaining heavy rail, and there are two other routes between Wigan and Manchester so diversionary capability isn't really an issue.

Like many things on the Manchester rail network, a long term solution here depends on what (if anything) HS3 looks like. If it takes the Liverpool trains off the existing network by whatever means then capacity is released for shorter-distance trains. If it doesn't then that suggests a Metrolink/tram-train solution, possibly involving a light rail tunnel. Either option would deliver different side benefits and there are other factors as well as the number of stations that influence the relative costs of a rail or Metrolink tunnel, so this reallly needs looking at in the round before decisions are made.

 

[AndrewE]

Please tell me which routes are still running 100 seat trains into Manchester in the peaks, once the changes committed by the Northern franchise are completed.

As far as I'm aware none of the individual services that pass through Oxford Road runs any more than twice an hour. It's the number of them that converge there that creates the capacity problem.

Cardiff-Manchester and return are often 2-car trains at the North end (in my - admittedly limited - experience) in the evening peak. Don't forget that changes supposedly committed to are "jam tomorrow" - you seem to be mixing current problems and future promises in the initial question.

 

[AndrewE]

This is also always in the back of my mind. It is the insistance of running trains to the airport that causes it. The issues of the piccadilly throat could have been solved without it. Keep warrington on TPE network by sending 1 to Chester and send the other to Blackpool.

I will wait to see in the long term what reliability down this corridor is, but I would not be surprised of in a year we are lookong at another re-cast to temove services and increase reliability

Was it just a relatively cheap option for linking the city ststions?
I too could never understand the rationale which claimed that running trans-Pennine trains through the slimmed-down Victoria, then back round through Oxford Rd and Picc and out to the south east could possibly ease any of the capacity problems.

 

[AndrewE]

Which, if you understand my comment, is why it's efficient to hand off your low-capacity local services over to a system which is more suited for them. Metrolink can justify spending hundreds of millions on new and converted lines because they know passenger revenue would cover the costs. Line-of-sight tram technology can deliver incredible frequencies for tiny costs compared to NR simply due to the inherent technical differences between trams and trains.

...Except that we now have hour-long tram journeys on ex-railway lines when the intra-conurbation connectivity needs fast regional metro (heavy rail) links as well as trams and buses.

 

[Chester1]

The current capacity of the corridor is 8tph to Piccadilly, 2tph terminating at Oxford Road and 1 freight path. The resignaling, rebuilding Oxford Road and P15/16 would increase capacity to 18tph to Piccadilly and 2 freight paths. Some of the trains could also be extended to 8 cars. Piccadilly P15/16 has been estimated at £150m and the rest would probably cost a similar amount. Doubled up Metrolink units have only a capacity of 80. 25tph doubled up would therefore be 2000 seats or approximately similiar to 10 class 319s. At best a third city crossing would add the same capacity as upgrading the Castlefield Junction to Piccadilly combined with train lengthening but it would cost much more and only support local services.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The Crescent was a huge road; this and its continuation into Salford have been substantially downgraded so although expensive I think it would be possible given the will.

Agreed.

Bi-modes for Southport or Skelmersdale, running via Bolton, might be a solution here. With no realistic prospect of joining it to Metrolink, it probably makes sense to feed as many trains as possible through Bolton to provide a comparable frequency and enough capacity.

The problem is that current thinking is a maximum of 2tph from the Westhoughton line is all that can be accommodated on the Bolton line given the need to double-up service on the Blackburn line and operate the Chorley line as a mainline. Effectively that means the Atherton line has to continue having heavy-rail capability.

The Sheffield tram-trains do have 25kV capability, although they won't be using it until/unless 25kV extends towards Rotherham. Converting the Atherton line to Metrolink operation would be much cheaper than retaining heavy rail, and there are two other routes between Wigan and Manchester so diversionary capability isn't really an issue.

See above. Also the distance from Manchester starts to come into play. While a direct service into the city centre proper as opposed to having to change at Oxford Rd/Piccadilly/Victoria for a bus or tram can offset the increased journey time I think that Atherton is getting close to the limit when a reasonably quick journey by rail is currently available. The alternative route from Wigan to Manchester involves a slow single-track connection between the ex-L&Y and L&NW routes: not terribly robust for everyday operations. And conversion to pure Metrolink of the Atherton line would necessarily cut off its stations from a direct link to Wigan, not useful for the scholars or shoppers who use the line in that direction.

Like many things on the Manchester rail network, a long term solution here depends on what (if anything) HS3 looks like. If it takes the Liverpool trains off the existing network by whatever means then capacity is released for shorter-distance trains. If it doesn't then that suggests a Metrolink/tram-train solution, possibly involving a light rail tunnel. Either option would deliver different side benefits and there are other factors as well as the number of stations that influence the relative costs of a rail or Metrolink tunnel, so this reallly needs looking at in the round before decisions are made.

Again agreed. My fear is that the Treasury is about to turn off the investment taps and while that shouldn't affect HS2 everything else is in danger of only being done on the cheap, if at all, and we'll end up having the same sorts of problems and discussions in 20 years time.

 

[daodao]

The only extensions that are technically viable are Middleton via Crumpsall and new lines South East of Piccadilly through extending the two terminating services or the Etihad terminating service. Building a third city crossing is far from simple or cheap.

Oxford Road trams have been done to death on the other transport sub forum and on Skyscrapercity.

I agree with proposed tram extensions as the next obvious expansion for Metrolink after the Trafford Park line is completed, particularly to Rose Hill via Reddish. They could even extend the service into Heaton Park on summer Sundays (as was done with the original system in 1903)!

An Oxford Road tram service from St Peter's Square to West Didsbury (Palatine Road) with a connection to Metrolink there is logical in theory, as the demand is there. Sadly however, the disruption to build it and the restriction on road space for other purposes, particularly through busy retail areas in the Khyber pass (Rusholme), Fallowfield and Withington, would be problematic.

It would help capacity on the CLC line and between Knott Mill and Piccadilly if the CLC line via Warrington was electrified throughout.

Conversion of the Atherton line to Metrolink would cause problems with services to Wigan and Southport and connectivity between Salford Crescent and the existing Metrolink system would be very difficult to achieve.

 

[jayah]

Please tell me which routes are still running 100 seat trains into Manchester in the peaks, once the changes committed by the Northern franchise are completed.

As far as I'm aware none of the individual services that pass through Oxford Road runs any more than twice an hour. It's the number of them that converge there that creates the capacity problem.

The Northern franchise is busy ordering more 2-3 car PRM compliant units. Why have 4 cabs, 2 sets of PRM facilities if they are going to stay coupled. All 2 car units will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant.

At the moment there are no paths but someone will be getting a frequency increase of these signalling changes are creating more paths and higher frequency through the Oxford Rd platforms.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The Northern franchise is busy ordering more 2-3 car PRM compliant units. Why have 4 cabs, 2 sets of PRM facilities if they are going to stay coupled. All 2 car units will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant.

At the moment there are no paths but someone will be getting a frequency increase of these signalling changes are creating more paths and higher frequency through the Oxford Rd platforms.

Presumably they will be coupled during the peaks/when going into Manchester and uncoupled for e.g. Lancaster to Morecambe off-peak. These are probably the last pure diesel units that will be produced so will need to be able to be cascaded down to lesser-used routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Cardiff-Manchester and return are often 2-car trains at the North end (in my - admittedly limited - experience) in the evening peak. Don't forget that changes supposedly committed to are "jam tomorrow" - you seem to be mixing current problems and future promises in the initial question.

Unless a 150 substitutes for the normal 175 or 158, that's still a lot more than 100 seats.

I've included committed changes because it's standard practice in transport planning not to propose solutions when a solution is already in the pipeline. I agree that in the current climate it's possible that "committed" changes will suddenly cease to be so...

 

[edwin_m]

Was it just a relatively cheap option for linking the city ststions?
I too could never understand the rationale which claimed that running trans-Pennine trains through the slimmed-down Victoria, then back round through Oxford Rd and Picc and out to the south east could possibly ease any of the capacity problems.

Because it avoids them having to cross five tracks between Ardwick and Piccadilly, blocking four other paths.

 

[AndrewE]

Because it avoids them having to cross five tracks between Ardwick and Piccadilly, blocking four other paths.

OK, but that only applies to trains to/from west of Piccadilly. Are you saying that the ones that reverse at Picc couldn't be run in to one of the central platforms then back out on the south side?

Maybe together with eliminating the time lost by north transpennine trains grinding round Guide Bridge plus reversing makes it worth doing though.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is that current thinking is a maximum of 2tph from the Westhoughton line is all that can be accommodated on the Bolton line given the need to double-up service on the Blackburn line and operate the Chorley line as a mainline. Effectively that means the Atherton line has to continue having heavy-rail capability.

Does Wigan-Manchester need more than 2TPH via Westhoughton and 1 faster TPH via Chat Moss? This may be a case as suggested further back where longer trains rather than more trains is the answer. Otherwise perhaps the tram-trains could be fitted out with an interior more suitable for longer distances and some could run as limited stop? There is plenty of room for overtaking loops on this formerly four-track formation.

Also the distance from Manchester starts to come into play. While a direct service into the city centre proper as opposed to having to change at Oxford Rd/Piccadilly/Victoria for a bus or tram can offset the increased journey time I think that Atherton is getting close to the limit when a reasonably quick journey by rail is currently available. The alternative route from Wigan to Manchester involves a slow single-track connection between the ex-L&Y and L&NW routes: not terribly robust for everyday operations. And conversion to pure Metrolink of the Atherton line would necessarily cut off its stations from a direct link to Wigan, not useful for the scholars or shoppers who use the line in that direction.

I was suggesting Metrolink conversion from the junction north of Salford Crescent (exclusive) to Crow Nest, with the vehicles running as tram-trains only for the short distance between there and Wigan. The link at Salford would probably be easier if the existing connection isn't needed, as a ramp could be built in its place for the tram-trains to fly over the Bolton line north of the station.

A fast electric service from Manchester to Wigan via Chat Moss would terminate in one of the bays at North Western. A bi-mode on the Southport service via Westhoughton could switch to diesel at Wallgate if the tricky overbridge is electrified, otherwise at Ince or on the move in between. Neither would need to use the connection.

 

[Ianno87]

OK, but that only applies to trains to/from west of Piccadilly. Are you saying that the ones that reverse at Picc couldn't be run in to one of the central platforms then back out on the south side?

Maybe together with eliminating the time lost by north transpennine trains grinding round Guide Bridge plus reversing makes it worth doing though.

Correct - part of the logic for the chord is to reduce the Leeds-Manchester journey time by giving a faster run into Victoria (and thence round to the Airport) rather than the current squeal into Piccadilly.

 

[lejog]

The Northern franchise is busy ordering more 2-3 car PRM compliant units. Why have 4 cabs, 2 sets of PRM facilities if they are going to stay coupled. All 2 car units will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant.

At the moment there are no paths but someone will be getting a frequency increase of these signalling changes are creating more paths and higher frequency through the Oxford Rd platforms.

Northern will have seven services through platforms 15/16 after May 2018. Four will be 4 car EMUs, the other 3 will be Northern Connect Class 195s phased in by 2019, so no "2 car units (which) will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant".

The Calder Valley service will be a 3 car 195 with 204 seats (possibly 6 car in the peaks). I don't know the plans for the CLC or Cumbria services, but you would hope the CLC service is at least 3 car since it is replacing a TPE 185. That leaves only the Cumbria service as a 2 car DMU, but even that will have 124 seats.

In summary there will be no Northern services with 100-110 seats through the platforms. Only 1 of 7 services is likely to have <200 seats.

TPE 3 (1 Scotland and 2 Leeds)
Northern EMUs 4 (2 Blackpool North, Chat Moss, Wigan NW(Flex?))
Northern DMU 3 (CLC, Cumbria, Calder Valley)
EMT 1
ATW 1

 

[notlob.divad]

Correct - part of the logic for the chord is to reduce the Leeds-Manchester journey time by giving a faster run into Victoria (and thence round to the Airport) rather than the current squeal into Piccadilly.

I think the point is that part 1

reduce the Leeds-Manchester journey time by giving a faster run into Victoria

could have been achieved without needing to build the chord if there was not an insistence on

(and thence round to the Airport)

And in doing so, Warrington, Chester, & possibly Blackpool could have been included on the TPE network, without the need to worry about Castlefield Junction - Slade Lane capacity issues.

 

[jayah]

Northern will have seven services through platforms 15/16 after May 2018. Four will be 4 car EMUs, the other 3 will be Northern Connect Class 195s phased in by 2019, so no "2 car units (which) will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant".

The Calder Valley service will be a 3 car 195 with 204 seats (possibly 6 car in the peaks). I don't know the plans for the CLC or Cumbria services, but you would hope the CLC service is at least 3 car since it is replacing a TPE 185. That leaves only the Cumbria service as a 2 car DMU, but even that will have 124 seats.

In summary there will be no Northern services with 100-110 seats through the platforms. Only 1 of 7 services is likely to have <200 seats.

200 seats is still dismally low and the point about 6 cars on Calder Valley looks highly speculative. You don't see these mini-trains at Waterloo, Victoria or London Bridge so before spending £bn ramping up the infrastructure for more trains they need to take a long look at what they are doing.

As we said with the Voyagers, when they are introduced those two car trains will be somewhere on the network come 0900 and 1700 and it will be very unpleasant.

Who got the short straw? Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds?

 

[Chester1]

As a regular user I hate to say this but the worst use of capacity along the Piccadilly-Castlefield corridor is ATW. Their trains are often only two coaches and a maximum of four. They also waste time and space by staying in Mayfield sidings for about 50 minutes at a time. They would be better running through Victoria to terminate at Rochdale or Stalybridge. It would mean both express services from Chester would run to Victoria not Piccadilly but it would allow for a longer train to use the corridor.

No tram or tram train estimate has come close to being competitive with increase rail capacity through Piccadilly-Castlefield. It sounds like the cheapest option is to rebuild Castlefield Junction closing Deansgate and then extending P1-4 at Oxford Road. Piccadilly P15/16 could then be delayed to early CP7 (2024-29). A demolition of Deansgate and widening of the viaduct in its place plus an Oxford Road rebuild would be politically appealing because it would be very visable investment, especially if it included a walkway to Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop. P15/16 would add more capacity for a similar price but would be less appealing to a government being accused of not paying for infrastructure in the north.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Does Wigan-Manchester need more than 2TPH via Westhoughton and 1 faster TPH via Chat Moss? This may be a case as suggested further back where longer trains rather than more trains is the answer. Otherwise perhaps the tram-trains could be fitted out with an interior more suitable for longer distances and some could run as limited stop? There is plenty of room for overtaking loops on this formerly four-track formation.

Given that during the course of the current franchise the standard off-peak service will see no less than 7tph between Wigan and Manchester I do not think there is any possibility of just 3tph being in any way acceptable! And I also doubt that tram-trains would be acceptable for that length of journey either. Lack of bicycle space and toilet being the main issues. And what about services west of Wigan?

I was suggesting Metrolink conversion from the junction north of Salford Crescent (exclusive) to Crow Nest, with the vehicles running as tram-trains only for the short distance between there and Wigan. The link at Salford would probably be easier if the existing connection isn't needed, as a ramp could be built in its place for the tram-trains to fly over the Bolton line north of the station.

Again I do not think it will be acceptable to remove heavy-rail capability from the Atherton line. Though the link at Salford might well be possible in the way you suggest, even with mixed operation.

A fast electric service from Manchester to Wigan via Chat Moss would terminate in one of the bays at North Western. A bi-mode on the Southport service via Westhoughton could switch to diesel at Wallgate if the tricky overbridge is electrified, otherwise at Ince or on the move in between. Neither would need to use the connection.

A couple of problems with this. Firstly the bays can only just about accept a 4x20m unit so no scope for doubling up. Secondly northbound trains have to cross the WCML to reach the bays; a few years ago Springs Branch Jn was remodelled with an independent line from there to North Western allowing Liverpool trains to terminate in Platform 6 without any conflict with the WCML. Serving Wigan via Chat Moss only makes sense, under normal circumstances, when those trains are running to/from somewhere further north. If such services are going to bring still further trains on to that part of the WCML then additional tracks between North Western and Balshaw Lane Jn will be a pre-requisite.

 

[lejog]

Andy Burnham loves moaning about the south but you don't see many 100 seat trains at Waterloo at any time of day.

When you have wedged the network in Manchester with 100 seat trains and demand Whitehall pay £20bn for upgrades it is long overdue to get the house in order.

Yes the railway has very high fixed costs, but the last thing to do is declare the network full with 100 seat trains and then go and double those costs by upscaling the infrastructure and building brand new lines.

The Northern franchise is busy ordering more 2-3 car PRM compliant units. Why have 4 cabs, 2 sets of PRM facilities if they are going to stay coupled. All 2 car units will be 100-110 seats once PRM compliant.

200 seats is still dismally low and the point about 6 cars on Calder Valley looks highly speculative. You don't see these mini-trains at Waterloo, Victoria or London Bridge so before spending £bn ramping up the infrastructure for more trains they need to take a long look at what they are doing.

As we said with the Voyagers, when they are introduced those two car trains will be somewhere on the network come 0900 and 1700 and it will be very unpleasant.

Who got the short straw? Newcastle, Sheffield, Leeds?

Changed your tune now after all the previous wibble about 100 seat trains on this thread? 200 seats may be dismally low to you, but longer trains in the North requires investment in platform lengthening. However believe it or not this has been looked at and is planned. Under the franchise agreement Northern are committed to carrying out to train/platform lengthening on 15 lines including 6*23m on Calder Valley services. If this "looks highly speculative" to you, please refer to the Franchise Agreement (p 278).

When even the rural Penistone service and the parliamentary Leeds-Goole service are planned to see lengthening to 3*20m, perhaps you can enlighten us which urban rush hour services will be unstrengthened 2 car services?

The reason for increased services through platforms 15-16 is not primarily to do with train lengths, but improved connectivity boosting the North's economy. If you want to see the economic case for this, please read the Manchester Hub Part 1 study. Increased economic growth, means more tax collected and payback of investment to the government. Network Rail's response to this my be found in the Part 2 study.

 

[lejog]

The objective isn't just to carry more and more people on exponentially increasing subsidies. Madness.

The yearly subsidy to Northern is targeted to reduce from £250m to £90m by the end of the current franchise.

Does that include the PTE subsidies and Network Grant?

No, I'm not privy to the Government's plans for future spending on these. However the latest ORR Rail Finance Report shows the Network Grant to be steady from 2006 onwards (graph p4) and the PTE subsidies to be down from £414 million in 2003 to £126 million in 2015 and steady in last 2 years, neither of which suggest large rises in future.

Now do you have any credible sources to suggest that there will be "exponentially increasing subsidies" and to back up your claim of madness? :roll: