We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[mwmbwls]

https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1855-Relieving-Castlefield

Since the opening of the Ordsall Chord, too many passenger services have been scheduled via the Castlefield corridor through Manchester’s Oxford Road and Piccadilly stations. Railfuture, through its Freight Group and Infrastructure and Networks Group, have come up with a response to the challenge of the Castlefield Corridor with a particular focus on freight movements.Due to their length, freight trains take up twice the line capacity of passenger trains. For reliable operation, a line should only operate at 85% capacity. At Castlefield it is pressed to 93% with delays and cancellations a regular occurrence. Freight currently has no choice but to use this route every hour and cannot deploy some of the tricks passenger services use to recover from late running. It cannot turn back short of its final destination and ask its cargo to catch the next train or leave out stops to recover time if it’s journey is delayed. But, as freight doesn’t complain on social media when it is late or cancelled, it is a popular target for politicians looking for a solution.Before advancing a potential solution, we had to consider how we want freight to develop in future. As batteries can never match the energy density of road fuel and therefore not suitable for long distance road haulage and demand for freight movement by rail will far exceed that of today, almost certainly outgrowing capacity at Trafford Park. Is it now time to look for another site? If so, where?

The proposed solution consists of three elements: The closure of Trafford Park Container Depot; A replacement depot on the site of the former Carrington Refinery and a chord between the WCML ( L&NWR in old money) and the Hazel Grove to Northenden link (Midland Railway/CLC)

This is attractive but what issues would you see arising from this idea? What sort of timescale would be feasible?

 

[Mollman]

But isn't the point of Trafford Park that it is located where a lot of the customers are?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But isn't the point of Trafford Park that it is located where a lot of the customers are?

They're not proposing to close Trafford Park. They're proposing to supplement it and to provide alternative access to it from the west so that freight trains no longer have to use the Castlefield Corridor.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The OP clearly proposes the "closure" of Trafford Park (and replacement by at new depot at Carrington).

Besides not being as close to many freight customers the Carrington site is tucked away on the 'wrong' side of the Ship Canal and thus has poor local road links to the motorway network.

There does not appear to be any undeveloped land to allow a 'west-south' chord linking the Northenden line to the WCML. There is a double track bottleneck between Stockport and Cheadle Hulme.

The idea would probably destroy the economics of intermodal rail freight in the Manchester conurbation, create a new choke point on the network, generate strong local 'planning' opposition and not even (in itself) be enough to 'solve' the Castlefield bottleneck.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The OP clearly proposes the "closure" of Trafford Park (and replacement by at new depot at Carrington).

Regardless of the OP, the report referred to states very clearly:

In drawing up a possible solution we have been guided by the following assumptions:

1. that Trafford Park will continue to operate as part of that freight offering and will need to be accessed other than via Castlefield

 

[mwmbwls]

Regardless of the OP, the report referred to states very clearly:

In drawing up a possible solution we have been guided by the following assumptions:

1. that Trafford Park will continue to operate as part of that freight offering and will need to be accessed other than via Castlefield

I suspect Mr Smart the author is being diplomatic - access from the CLC route from Warrington is not simple and East Didsbury is given over to trams.

This topic has been a subject of debate in local government and transport circles for sometime. I first became aware of it after attending a CILT meeting addressed by Robert Fickling - TfGM's rail development officer at that time. One of the topics that he raised was the need to move Trafford Park freight depot for various reasons. The first being that Container Trains running through Piccadilly to Deansgate require two train paths to accommodate the length of the trains. Their rate of acceleration and deceleration causes stops or checks in the corridor that impacts surrounding services. This was subsequently confirmed in the Network Rail report discussed extensively here concerning the congested infrastructure in the Castlefield Corridor. Trafford Park is in a central location but vehicles coming to and leaving the location have to contend with increasing levels of local traffic in and around the terminal. The transit route to the M60 is of critical importance. I do not buy this "that's where all the customers are" argument. I cannot speak for other destinations but the large scale Gemini developments around Warrington are to my professional knowledge significant destinations for containers loads that require depalletising/repalletising services. Local residents in Manchester will know of the difficulties of the Manchester and Salford Inner Ring Road and the M60. Phil Smart's report for Rail Future is an astute suggestion that consists of two key elements. The first is that a modern container terminal built on the Carrington Refinery site. The design he posits has a strong resemblance to the new facilities at Felixstowe - which is not surprising given the strength of container flows on that axis. The former refinery lies outside the M60 ring but is linked by what at one time was called the Carrington Spur Motorway. It is a toss up as to which is the shorter distance to the M60 Phil Smart's second suggestion is a chord between the 1905 Midland Railway/CLC line from Hazel Grove to Skelton Junction and the London and North Western mainline between Adswood and Cheadle Hulme, just north of Adswood Road. The site is clearly visible from southbound trains from Stockport to Stoke. It is currently used as a Waste Disposal centre and was formerly a rubbish tip. By use of a chord similar to that at Hazel Grove, Mr Smart proposes to facilitate access for container traffic from Skelton Junction and bulk aggregate trains from Peak Forest to access the West Coast Main Line. This would remove container trains from the Castlefield Corridor and the aggregate trains that currently travel round a grand circle through Guide Bridge and Heaton Norris to head south. These trains take up scarce paths through congestion pinch points at Oxford Road and Stockport Edgeley..

So what's not to like - operationally there is a logic. The problem arises in co-ordinating all of the various commercial stakeholder interests - getting the necessary elephants to line dance. The owners of the refinery site are already developing plans for it. IIRC EWS the rail freight company, bought the Trafford Park site (but it might now be owned by other interests). Trafford Park depot has development potential as area for the type of residential and office expansion found nearby. It will benefit by the precedents set by the Trafford Park Metrolink Line and Salford Quays developments. That's where TfGM and the Mayor come in.

 

[ABB125]

On the face of it, this seems a sensible, well thought out idea, killing two birds with one stone, namely intermodal traffic through Castlefield and stone traffic from the quarries. However, as I know virtually nothing about the area (both geographically and railway-wise) I can't make any comment other than "it seems a good idea".

 

[Ianno87]

It does seem to make quite a bold claim that the route via Macclesfield has capacity for container trains, as I recall....

 

[furnessvale]

The OP clearly proposes the "closure" of Trafford Park (and replacement by at new depot at Carrington).

Besides not being as close to many freight customers the Carrington site is tucked away on the 'wrong' side of the Ship Canal and thus has poor local road links to the motorway network.

There does not appear to be any undeveloped land to allow a 'west-south' chord linking the Northenden line to the WCML. There is a double track bottleneck between Stockport and Cheadle Hulme.

The idea would probably destroy the economics of intermodal rail freight in the Manchester conurbation, create a new choke point on the network, generate strong local 'planning' opposition and not even (in itself) be enough to 'solve' the Castlefield bottleneck.

Carrington is on the same side of the ship canal as Trafford Park.

The majority of container customers use the M60 to bring freight to the existing terminal

Carrington has a direct link to the M60 via the Carrington Spur road.

The location of the proposed link to the WCML is currently a waste disposal site built on a former tip.

Diagrams in the study show how the layout at Cheadle Hulme will effectively provide a third line to avoid any congestion towards Stockport.

 

[HSTEd]

As batteries can never match the energy density of road fuel and therefore not suitable for long distance road haulage and demand for freight movement by rail will far exceed that of today, almost certainly outgrowing capacity at Trafford Park. Is it now time to look for another site? If so, where?

Some people are living ina dreamworld.

They think this magical rail freight future is just around the corner.
It will never arrive without a drastic change in the ownership model.


The answers are:
Either build a new container depot
Build a new freight line bypassing Manchester city centre
Lose the freight flow entirely
Mandate ECP braking and electric locomotives for the stretch through Manchester to drastically improve freight train handling and bring performance closer to that of passenger trains

Do all or some of the above.

 

[43096]

Some people are living ina dreamworld.

They think this magical rail freight future is just around the corner.
It will never arrive without a drastic change in the ownership model.


The answers are:
Either build a new container depot
Build a new freight line bypassing Manchester city centre
Lose the freight flow entirely
Mandate ECP braking and electric locomotives for the stretch through Manchester to drastically improve freight train handling and bring performance closer to that of passenger trains

Do all or some of the above.

As usual, freight is the poor relation, presumably because a freight train can't tweet its disgust to the idiot in charge of Greater Manchester. Freight has just as much right to run through there. Until such time as a viable plan is developed for an alternative freight route, provide at least comparable facilities to Trafford Park and is done for no net cost to the freight operators, then the answer is to run fewer but longer passenger trains. It is the increased number of passenger trains through that area that is the problem.

 

[The Planner]

It does seem to make quite a bold claim that the route via Macclesfield has capacity for container trains, as I recall....

That's proper CTRL+B stuff there.

 

[HSTEd]

Freight has just as much right to run through there.

Which is to say, none

The railway is not run by divine right of the TOCs or FOCs or whoever.
Ultimately the railway only continues to function because many bilions of pounds a year of public money are expended to support it (despite the desperate attempt to convert renewal spending into enhancement spending to cover up the scale of the subsidy).

The public pay the piper, so the public call the tune.

 

[Ianno87]

Which is to say, none

The railway is not run by divine right of the TOCs or FOCs or whoever.
Ultimately the railway only continues to function because many bilions of pounds a year of public money are expended to support it (despite the desperate attempt to convert renewal spending into enhancement spending to cover up the scale of the subsidy).

The public pay the piper, so the public call the tune.

The freight probably brings more revenue to the railway and wider economic benefit than the 4 car sprinter to Alderley Edge right behind it...

 

[HSTEd]

The freight probably brings more revenue to the railway and wider economic benefit than the 4 car sprinter to Alderley Edge right behind it...

That will depend on how you account for externalities, but it is at the very least debatable.

Attempting to extend trains throuhg the corridor will cost billions in platform extensions at outlying stations, assuming more joining-spitting is even remotely feasible with the network map we have.

Ultimately the taxpayer, who pays for all this, prefers more regular service to more destinations to moving lorries a handful of miles closer to their destination than would otherwise be the case.

 

[Bevan Price]

Even with freight removed, there will still be too many passenger services through the Castlefield area. One solution for freight to/from the south via WCML would be to go via Warrington and Chat Moss, then the Weaste branch from Eccles. The existing cement terminal at Weaste has been disused for several years, and it ought to be feasible to convert the site to a liner terminal.

 

[furnessvale]

That will depend on how you account for externalities, but it is at the very least debatable.

Attempting to extend trains throuhg the corridor will cost billions in platform extensions at outlying stations, assuming more joining-spitting is even remotely feasible with the network map we have.

Ultimately the taxpayer, who pays for all this, prefers more regular service to more destinations to moving lorries a handful of miles closer to their destination than would otherwise be the case.

We are talking north west now, not south east. That means joining 2 x 2 coach dmus together, or 2 x 3 coach units at best to pass through the congested corridor using one path. We are not talking 12 coaches into Waterloo!

Each set combined at, say, Salford Crescent and split at, say, Stockport would save a path. Do that 4 times in the hour and the problem is solved.

 

[Ianno87]

Even with freight removed, there will still be too many passenger services through the Castlefield area. One solution for freight to/from the south via WCML would be to go via Warrington and Chat Moss, then the Weaste branch from Eccles. The existing cement terminal at Weaste has been disused for several years, and it ought to be feasible to convert the site to a liner terminal.

Chat Moss is a busy old bit if railway these days, not to mention the flat junctions to join the WCML and capacity through Weaver Jn

We are talking north west now, not south east. That means joining 2 x 2 coach dmus together, or 2 x 3 coach units at best to pass through the congested corridor using one path. We are not talking 12 coaches into Waterloo!

Each set combined at, say, Salford Crescent and split at, say, Stockport would save a path. Do that 4 times in the hour and the problem is solved.

I could literally not think of worse places to chew up a platform for 10+ minutes* at a time on capacity for splitting joining than Salford Crescent and Stockport.

4 times an hour is chewing up pretty much one platform in each direction completely for a whole hour before any other serices are considered.

Notwithstanding that (at Salford Crescent) 6-car trains can easiy be filled just with passengers from Bolton in themselves.


* 3/4 minutes headway between portions arriving, then 4 minutes to actually attach, then a 3 minute re-occupation to the next train.

 

[furnessvale]

Chat Moss is a busy old bit if railway these days, not to mention the flat junctions to join the WCML and capacity through Weaver Jn



I could literally not think of worse places to chew up a platform for 10+ minutes* at a time on capacity for splitting joining than Salford Crescent and Stockport.

4 times an hour is chewing up pretty much one platform in each direction completely for a whole hour before any other serices are considered.

Notwithstanding that (at Salford Crescent) 6-car trains can easiy be filled just with passengers from Bolton in themselves.


* 3/4 minutes headway between portions arriving, then 4 minutes to actually attach, then a 3 minute re-occupation to the next train.

OK. I still think of times on the Southern region when joining/splitting took a minute.

So the alternative is?........................less trains!

 

[Ianno87]

OK. I still think of times on the Southern region when joining/splitting took a minute.

At least 4 minutes for the actual attachment is the going minimum rate for modern EMUs. 6 is allowed at Cambridge.

 

[furnessvale]

At least 4 minutes for the actual attachment is the going minimum rate for modern EMUs. 6 is allowed at Cambridge.

Fair enough. Progress eh? Just like door opening/closing procedures etc slow the job down.

Never mind, less trains it is, as alluded to by Andy Burnham now they have to carry the can rather than blaming Northern.

 

[Ianno87]

Fair enough. Progress eh? Just like door opening/closing procedures etc slow the job down.

Never mind, less trains it is, as alluded to by Andy Burnham now they have to carry the can rather than blaming Northern.

Consequence of power doors, safe dispatch procedures, passenger information needing to be set up, drivers switching on, setting up GSM-R and all that stuff the folk of the drivers of Southern slammers didn't have to bother with.

 

[43096]

Which is to say, none

The railway is not run by divine right of the TOCs or FOCs or whoever.
Ultimately the railway only continues to function because many bilions of pounds a year of public money are expended to support it (despite the desperate attempt to convert renewal spending into enhancement spending to cover up the scale of the subsidy).

The public pay the piper, so the public call the tune.

I think you need to go and look at what rights the freight operators actually have.

As for “divine right” - you seem to think the passenger operators have just that! It’s the passenger operators and their sponsors (the terminally useless and un-holy trio of DfT, TfGM and Transport for the North) that made this mess, so they are first up against the wall for sorting it out. Until such time as they stop running silly 2 and 3 car trains through there and everything is 4 car minimum (and preferably 6 car or more) their complaints about capacity can be rejected. First thing to do is fewer but longer trains.

 

[AM9]

I think you need to go and look at what rights the freight operators actually have.

As for “divine right” - you seem to think the passenger operators have just that! ...

Well passengers have votes in elections which in the eyes of legislators, trump any nebulus implied rights that FOCs might use to play the field. I've yet to see a load of freight getting a mention in election voting analyses.

... It’s the passenger operators and their sponsors (the terminally useless and un-holy trio of DfT, TfGM and Transport for the North) that made this mess, so they are first up against the wall for sorting it out. Until such time as they stop running silly 2 and 3 car trains through there and everything is 4 car minimum (and preferably 6 car or more) their complaints about capacity can be rejected. First thing to do is fewer but longer trains.

I would agree about running frequent short trains from everywhere to everywhere else, but if passenger growth continues along current trends, there will be just as many 4-car trains running around the NW, - serving even more voters!

 

[HSTEd]

I think you need to go and look at what rights the freight operators actually have.

They have the rights Parliament permit them to have.

Those rights can be taken away with a stroke of a pen.

Parliament ultimately answers to the public, and thus to passengers, not to nebulous freight operators.

And if franchised operators and the freight operators get into a bidding war over paths (assuming ofcourse they aren't simply lying about how tight their margins are) the franchised operators will inevitably triumph.

 

[HSTEd]

We are talking north west now, not south east. That means joining 2 x 2 coach dmus together, or 2 x 3 coach units at best to pass through the congested corridor using one path. We are not talking 12 coaches into Waterloo!

Each set combined at, say, Salford Crescent and split at, say, Stockport would save a path. Do that 4 times in the hour and the problem is solved.

Where will the platform space at Salford Crescent and Stockport come from?
How much do you propose to spend on this capacity?

 

[mwmbwls]

Even with freight removed, there will still be too many passenger services through the Castlefield area. One solution for freight to/from the south via WCML would be to go via Warrington and Chat Moss, then the Weaste branch from Eccles. The existing cement terminal at Weaste has been disused for several years, and it ought to be feasible to convert the site to a liner terminal.

With all due respect I disagree. The alternative land use value of the cement terminal as part of the Salford Quays residential and business district will outweigh the rail freight connected value. It would also increase road freight traffic coming to or leaving the depot in a notorious traffic congestion hot spot

 

[mwmbwls]

It does seem to make quite a bold claim that the route via Macclesfield has capacity for container trains, as I recall....

You have identified a red herring. In practice - IIRC the preferred route for both mineral and container trains is to Basford Hall - for crew and traction change. Of course this could change should the Northwich and Sandbach line be reopened - although the connection for container trains would be problematic at Skelton Junction.

 

[The Planner]

And if franchised operators and the freight operators get into a bidding war over paths (assuming ofcourse they aren't simply lying about how tight their margins are) the franchised operators will inevitably triumph.

Not always, depends on how the decision criteria are used. Network Code Part D, section 4.6 is your friend.

 

[furnessvale]

You have identified a red herring. In practice - IIRC the preferred route for both mineral and container trains is to Basford Hall - for crew and traction change. Of course this could change should the Northwich and Sandbach line be reopened - although the connection for container trains would be problematic at Skelton Junction.

No "should" about it. This line sees regular freight, albeit reduced at the moment because of C19.