We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[mwmbwls]

So if the access to Carrington refinery is from the south how would we fit in the south to west link? How would we rearrange the line section through Navigation Road? Run trams by road into Altrincham?

 

[Killingworth]

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!

I'd have written similar 3 months ago. However we're seeing a massive decline in rail ridership that won't be restored to 2018/19 levels for at least 5 years, if ever. At the same time more longer trains are being provided, many with better positioned doors to assist quicker loading. More trains are currently running to time thanks to there being fewer of them and fewer passengers.

Freight is down, but will probably recover faster. At present we just don't know how it's all going to look in 12 months time, let alone 5-10 years.

Now if we wanted to do the job properly we'd be bringing HS2 underground to Piccadilly where it would interchange with a Cross-Manchester underground east -west link and a WeaverLink north-south underground, with clover leaf grade separated junctions between them.

But that's too much in the future

 

[furnessvale]

So if the access to Carrington refinery is from the south how would we fit in the south to west link? How would we rearrange the line section through Navigation Road? Run trams by road into Altrincham?

We don't. The freights would run from Carrington along the line to Northenden and the freight line towards Adswood where a new chord would connect to Cheadle Hulme.

 

[Ianno87]

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.

Crewe is also a useful pathing bolt hole to join paths into Manchester with paths southwards on the WCML.

Going via Stoke, there's much less regulation capability so you're basically stuck in whatever path you end up in at Cheadle Hulme, so may come unstuck by the time you get to Colwich.


Going via Northwich/Sandbach would also presumably create issues with the extra trains required over the various level crossings through Altrincham/Hale (plus the Navigation Road single line section).

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

Cite Example: In normal time; Cambridge-King's Cross stopping services have hour long gaps (in otherwise half-hourly services) to permit the Barrington freights to run at Foxton.

 

[Mollman]

There was once talk about reopening part of the GC route to Wigan to connect the the L&M near Newton-le-Willows and thus the West Coast Mainline. This would allow freight for Trafford Park to run via Warrington, although that probably creates capacity issues north of Crewe. It would work well if tied in with electrifying the CLC route.

 

[mwmbwls]

We don't. The freights would run from Carrington along the line to Northenden and the freight line towards Adswood where a new chord would connect to Cheadle Hulme.

Apologies - I pressed submit in error.
I was pondering the implications of the difference in height between the Midland and the L&NWR track levels and the implications for restarting trains on the new chords across the Adswood tip. The tight curve at Ashton Moss Junction was eased during the preparations for NPR electrification. Would curvature and gradient not also be a factor on the Adswood chord, when taking into account the target weight of loaded mineral trains at 2,600 tons and length of container trains up to 775 metres.

 

[furnessvale]

Apologies - I pressed submit in error.
I was pondering the implications of the difference in height between the Midland and the L&NWR track levels and the implications for restarting trains on the new chords across the Adswood tip. The tight curve at Ashton Moss Junction was eased during the preparations for NPR electrification. Would curvature and gradient not also be a factor on the Adswood chord, when taking into account the target weight of loaded mineral trains at 2,600 tons and length of container trains up to 775 metres.

I believe gradients have been considered in the proposals. The ruling gradient on the route of any given train could well be elsewhere than this Adswood chord.

 

[Ianno87]

I believe gradients have been considered in the proposals. The ruling gradient on the route of any given train could well be elsewhere than this Adswood chord.

It's when gradient and curvature combine that makes life difficult for freights.

I recall that the Reading West - Readimg Station Relief line side dive under is pretty close to limiting on freights, as an example.

 

[markymark2000]

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

Can electric trains go into Trafford Park?
If so, all but a few services stop in Crewe freight yards so could swap to diesel there.

 

[mwmbwls]

I believe gradients have been considered in the proposals. The ruling gradient on the route of any given train could well be elsewhere than this Adswood chord.

You are correct. 2,600 tons, circa 520 metres is the limit for Peak Forest (post the Dore South chord works} whilst 775 metres is the national maximum for containers.

 

[The Planner]

You are correct. 2,600 tons, circa 520 metres is the limit for Peak Forest (post the Dore South chord works} whilst 775 metres is the national maximum for containers.

775m is what all new loops NR aspire to for in terms of length, but that doesn't mean you cannot run it longer. I'm pretty sure we have run trains over 120 SLU and still do, normally by sticking them in the specially authorised loads documents to overcome any limits in the loads books.

 

[MarkyT]

775m is what all new loops NR aspire to for in terms of length, but that doesn't mean you cannot run it longer. I'm pretty sure we have run trains over 120 SLU and still do, normally by sticking them in the specially authorised loads documents to overcome any limits in the loads books.

You'd ideally want a little more than 775m clear length available to hold a standard 775m train on a loop, perhaps ideally around 1000m on a high capacity multi-traffic mainline with frequent overtaking, so a reasonable run-in speed for a standard length freight is maintained for longer. Otherwise, if the loop is only a little longer than the train itself, the tail can be going very slowly indeed as it traverses the loop turnout before clearing the mainline while the driver is inching up towards the signal. Such extra length means you could theoretically hold trains longer than 775m, but the longer the train is the more you'll to start to run into the tail clearing time problem again, so a longer train might need a slightly longer planned margin ahead of a following fast, even if it could otherwise match the performance of the standard length freight on the route.

 

[HSTEd]

Well there is always the German solution of 160km/h capable container flats.

With ECP braking and modern electric locomotives (with huge installed power and CoCo for maximum tractive effort) you could get pretty close to passenger performance, which reduces the need for looping the trains and thus allows them to extend to almost unlimited length.
Also ECP braking would improve train handling and allow you to put a longer train in the same loop because you have better brake control.

Can electric trains go into Trafford Park?
If so, all but a few services stop in Crewe freight yards so could swap to diesel there.

I think the line to the yard is electrified, after all matchday specials have historically run to the halt adjacent to the current facility ( atleast I think it is the current facility, its the only obvious choice in the area).
As far as I can tell the track through the platform also goes through the yard.

 

[Jozhua]

This is all pretty funny, because for £500m the situation could be resolved by adding two platforms at Piccadilly and upgrading Oxford Road.

It's really not expensive in the scheme of things and would massively benefit the people of Greater Manchester and beyond.

At least with some extra platforms, passenger trains can load as the freight rolls through. And there will be faster recovery either side of the freight.

The amount of money needed to move trains off the corridor, while maintaining service/connections would far exceed that of simply investing in this project. The platforms barely have capacity simply to hold the passengers required and no room for growth, so getting this moving ASAP is vital.

If you want to support/share the new petition, please do:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301122

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I still think a great start would be electrification of the CLC

 

[Ianno87]

Well there is always the German solution of 160km/h capable container flats.

I'm not an expert, but they presumably have aerodynamic implications, potentially on speeds through tunnels.

This is all pretty funny, because for £500m the situation could be resolved by adding two platforms at Piccadilly and upgrading Oxford Road.

It's really not expensive in the scheme of things and would massively benefit the people of Greater Manchester and beyond.

At least with some extra platforms, passenger trains can load as the freight rolls through. And there will be faster recovery either side of the freight.

The amount of money needed to move trains off the corridor, while maintaining service/connections would far exceed that of simply investing in this project. The platforms barely have capacity simply to hold the passengers required and no room for growth, so getting this moving ASAP is vital.

Yes, the thing does smack of avoiding an expensive scheme ny coming up with an even more expensive scheme.

However, I'm convinced that "thinking again" about Platforms 15/16 is needed.

If the two platforms were rebuilt, straight and wide immediately to the west of the present platforms (which would close), all services using them were 6 car length with 1/3 & 2/3 door positions of high performing stock (185,195,331 etc) and dispatch were sharpened up), that buys you mosy of the capacity 15/16 would have done at a relative fraction of the price.

I have a horrible feeling building 15/16 may have the perverse effect of simply 'baking in' the current (lets face it) sloppy, inconsistent, dogs breakfast of an operation)

 

[furnessvale]

I'm not an expert, but they presumably have aerodynamic implications, potentially on speeds through tunnels.

There is also an axleload penalty which increases with speed.

 

[daodao]

There was once talk about reopening part of the GC route to Wigan to connect the the L&M near Newton-le-Willows and thus the West Coast Mainline. This would allow freight for Trafford Park to run via Warrington, although that probably creates capacity issues north of Crewe. It would work well if tied in with electrifying the CLC route.

If Carrington is to be used as a freight container depot, it would be sensible to provide access to it from the west as well, via Glazebrook and the ex-GC line to Wigan as far as the Chat Moss line, where there could be a south-to-west curve to join the Chat Moss route. It would also provide a better freight bypass around Manchester from Liverpool and the North-West than the devious route via Knutsford. However, would not the simplest solution be to build this link and electrify it and the CLC line, so that the existing Trafford Park FLT could be retained, with much/all of the freight traffic to accessing it from the west rather than via the Castlefield line.

The single track line from Northenden junction to Edgeley via the former Cheadle High Level station might need to be redoubled, as this route is also used by passenger trains from Manchester to the ex-CLC Mid-Cheshire line. There would also be a capacity issue over the viaduct between Stockport and Cheadle Hulme, as this double-track line can't be widened and carries a lot of passenger traffic (fast and slow) to both Crewe (via Handforth) and Stoke (via Macclesfield) and beyond. Currently, most freight traffic from Trafford Park to the south bypasses Stockport and Cheadle Hulme via the Styal line.

 

[The Planner]

Its swings and roundabouts on this though, whoever funds it would have to use it as a loss leader as if you built all this just to remove freight from Castlefield and don't then back fill with other revenue generating services it won't add up. Whether people like it or not it is all going to come down to £££. Someone clearly needs to do the sums to see what cost an Intermodal going through there is in terms of schedule 8 compensation and reduced delay/performance. There are lots of good freight schemes that never come to pass because they don't facilitate anything else.

 

[Jozhua]

I'm not an expert, but they presumably have aerodynamic implications, potentially on speeds through tunnels.





Yes, the thing does smack of avoiding an expensive scheme ny coming up with an even more expensive scheme.

However, I'm convinced that "thinking again" about Platforms 15/16 is needed.

If the two platforms were rebuilt, straight and wide immediately to the west of the present platforms (which would close), all services using them were 6 car length with 1/3 & 2/3 door positions of high performing stock (185,195,331 etc) and dispatch were sharpened up), that buys you mosy of the capacity 15/16 would have done at a relative fraction of the price.

I have a horrible feeling building 15/16 may have the perverse effect of simply 'baking in' the current (lets face it) sloppy, inconsistent, dogs breakfast of an operation)

Why do you seem to think the current 13/14 would close? That's not part of the plan at all.

The current platforms can take 6-car trains already and a decent amount of services have been strengthened from what they once were.

Plus, there simply isn't enough room for any growth in passengers on the platforms without running into the danger of people falling on tracks.

 

[Ianno87]

Why do you seem to think the current 13/14 would close? That's not part of the plan at all.

The current platforms can take 6-car trains already and a decent amount of services have been strengthened from what they once were.

Plus, there simply isn't enough room for any growth in passengers on the platforms without running into the danger of people falling on tracks.

I'm proposing closing 13/14 as an alternative plan.

Replaced by 2 new, straight, wide, fit-for-purpose platforms that have the majority of capacity and throughout benefits of 4 curved, narrow, congested ones. That risk just baking in current operational problems than solving them.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Going back to the Railfuture document, they seem to be suggesting a cost for all their spurs, junction re-modellings, electrification, etc. of under £300 million! The impressive BCR of 2:1 appears to be based on that.

With due respect to HSTEd, I am far from clear that 160km/h (100 mph) capability for container trains would be particularly relevant on the Castlefield corridor. The aerodynamic effects of two 'walls of steel' at that rate through Oxford Road would be quite challenging.

 

[Efini92]

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.

The answer is simple. Get rid of metro link and convert the lines back to heavy rail. Thus there is no need to run freight through the castlefield corridor.
And as an added bonus passengers get faster journey times into the city plus there’s no disruption due to a car inadvertently driving onto the tram tracks.

 

[daodao]

The answer is simple. Get rid of metro link and convert the lines back to heavy rail. Thus there is no need to run freight through the castlefield corridor. And as an added bonus passengers get faster journey times into the city plus there’s no disruption due to a car inadvertently driving onto the tram tracks.

I presume you are being sarcastic. Metrolink is a much better way of providing suburban rail services in a medium-sized city such as Manchester.

 

[Efini92]

I presume you are being sarcastic. Metrolink is a much better way of providing suburban rail services in a medium-sized city such as Manchester.

No I’m serious. You can’t combine rail and road. All they are doing is creating more congestion. Those lines ran much better when they were under the control of British rail. Frequent fast services into the city.
freight was able to run in and out of Trafford park without having to run through Piccadilly.
Look at the Oldham line, on a fast service to Manchester the train could do it in 10 minutes. What’s the journey time now?
We had fantastic suburban services that have been lost over the years.

 

[Ianno87]

The answer is simple. Get rid of metro link and convert the lines back to heavy rail. Thus there is no need to run freight through the castlefield corridor.
And as an added bonus passengers get faster journey times into the city plus there’s no disruption due to a car inadvertently driving onto the tram tracks.

Cars driving onto the tram tracks is not a problem for the old heavy rail routes, for obvious reasons...


And there is a need to run freight through Castlefield. That's why you can see freight trains running through Castlefield. Because they're needed.

 

[Ianno87]

Look at the Oldham line, on a fast service to Manchester the train could do it in 10 minutes. What’s the journey time now?

How often did the trains run? Certainly not 10 per hour...in leaf fall it was only half-hourly.

Plus imagine Victoria's operations today if Oldham Loop services were in the mix with all the various TPEs etc.

 

[HSTEd]

With due respect to HSTEd, I am far from clear that 160km/h (100 mph) capability for container trains would be particularly relevant on the Castlefield corridor. The aerodynamic effects of two 'walls of steel' at that rate through Oxford Road would be quite challenging.

The effect is somewhat indirect.
I am not suggesting driving trains through Oxford Road at 100mph!

Although it would be something to see, I think you would agree.

The idea is that, if a freight train wtih near passenger performance can be engineered, the need for loops is significantly reduced.
At which point the train length constraint simply dissapears, and we can have fewer, longer trains that will still be substantially more efficient in use of paths.

Also if the train can cover most of the distance at 100mph, we can provide more waiting time to trains to pass through the corridor without affecting end to end journey times too much.

 

[Efini92]

Cars driving onto the tram tracks is not a problem for the old heavy rail routes, for obvious reasons...


And there is a need to run freight through Castlefield. That's why you can see freight trains running through Castlefield. Because they're needed.

They’re needed now because there is no other way. That was the point of my view. Before 1993 there was other ways.

 

[Efini92]

How often did the trains run? Certainly not 10 per hour...in leaf fall it was only half-hourly.

Plus imagine Victoria's operations today if Oldham Loop services were in the mix with all the various TPEs etc.

Even if you waited 30 mins for a train you’d still be in Manchester at least 20 minutes before the tram that departed at the start of your wait.

Fair point about Victoria, hopefully with the new arena being built at east lands they will demolish the current one and rebuild some of the lost station.