We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Greybeard33]

I see that, buried in the Prime Minister's "A New Deal for Britain" press release yesterday, there was this titbit:

£100m this year for 29 projects to improve our road network to get Britain moving, from bridge repairs in Sandwell to boosting the quality of the A15 in the Humber region. Plus £10m for development work to unblock the Manchester rail bottleneck, which will begin this year.

That's Castlefield sorted, then!

 

[LOL The Irony]

I see that, buried in the Prime Minister's "A New Deal for Britain" press release yesterday, there was this titbit:

That's Castlefield sorted, then!

So they're actually doing it now for real?

 

[SuspectUsual]

So they're actually doing it now for real?

well the £10m quoted might just get the shovels ready, to paraphrase the bumbling idiot

 

[Mag_seven]

I see that, buried in the Prime Minister's "A New Deal for Britain" press release yesterday, there was this titbit:

That's Castlefield sorted, then!

Of course they may just produce a report saying it can't be done or saying it can be done but with a massive price tag.

 

[HSTEd]

well the £10m quoted might just get the shovels ready, to paraphrase the bumbling idiot

Will there be more than one shovel for £10m?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Will there be more than one shovel for £10m?

Knowing railway inflation it'll probably be one small trowel.

 

[ABB125]

Knowing railway inflation it'll probably be one small trowel.

Are you sure about that? A gold-plated, copper-bottomed, brass-coated diamond-studded trowel sounds quite expensive to me, much more than £10 million! And even if said trowel can be obtained, surely it will be too fine a piece of craftsmanship and simply be placed in the display cabinet of the big-name consultancy firm that designed it?
/rant

 

[Glenn1969]

That is also why once the main Transpennine route is electrified Calder Valley should follow- both to allow the diversion when the other route has engineering to continue and for the benefits to ba extended to Bradford, Halifax and Rochdale area passengers

I also think to improve punctuality and reliability on all lines Castlefield needs 4 tracking and should have been sorted first to relieve the bottleneck

 

[Purple Orange]

That is also why once the main Transpennine route is electrified Calder Valley should follow- both to allow the diversion when the other route has engineering to continue and for the benefits to ba extended to Bradford, Halifax and Rochdale area passengers

I also think to improve punctuality and reliability on all lines Castlefield needs 4 tracking and should have been sorted first to relieve the bottleneck

4 tracking of the Castlefield corridor can’t happen. I’ve never understood why people on this forum propose such a scheme. Simply put, there is more chance of a completely new line from Leeds to Manchester than there is of 4 tracking through the centre of
Manchester. With reference to having had it sorted out first, that opportunity was during the 19th century and has not reappeared since.

 

[yorksrob]

4 tracking of the Castlefield corridor can’t happen. I’ve never understood why people on this forum propose such a scheme. Simply put, there is more chance of a completely new line from Leeds to Manchester than there is of 4 tracking through the centre of
Manchester. With reference to having had it sorted out first, that opportunity was during the 19th century and has not reappeared since.

I'm not saying I support the idea, but one might have thought the same thing of Borough Market Junction a few years back.

 

[Senex]

I'm not saying I support the idea, but one might have thought the same thing of Borough Market Junction a few years back.

Where there's a will .... And the will to solve the Manchester problem (and thus help to deal with its impact across the North of England) has been very noticeably lacking.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where there's a will .... And the will to solve the Manchester problem (and thus help to deal with its impact across the North of England) has been very noticeably lacking.

I wonder what the cost implications might be of the aspirational 4-tracking at Castlefield and what existing land usage, both railway and commercially owned, be affected by such a proposal?

 

[macka]

I'm not sure 4-tracking the Castlefield corridor will do that much. The Borough viaduct wasn't just to increase capacity but also separate the Charing Cross and Thameslink paths through London Bridge to Bermondsey, but the paths through Piccadilly and Oxford Road are already too intertwined for that to work because of the flat junctions all around Manchester. 4 fully operational platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly each are needed to allow for different services to stop (intercity, regional and local) and reduce platform overloading but if you really want to increase capacity you'll have to sort out the junctions first.

 

[takno]

4 tracking of the Castlefield corridor can’t happen. I’ve never understood why people on this forum propose such a scheme. Simply put, there is more chance of a completely new line from Leeds to Manchester than there is of 4 tracking through the centre of
Manchester. With reference to having had it sorted out first, that opportunity was during the 19th century and has not reappeared since.

In what sense can this not happen? The demolition involved would be surprisingly minimal, and it has been relatively actively planned by people in network rail at various points. It's off topic for this post, but it's certainly not just speculative forum dribble

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure 4-tracking the Castlefield corridor will do that much. The Borough viaduct wasn't just to increase capacity but also separate the Charing Cross and Thameslink paths through London Bridge to Bermondsey, but the paths through Piccadilly and Oxford Road are already too intertwined for that to work because of the flat junctions all around Manchester. 4 fully operational platforms at Oxford Road and Piccadilly each are needed to allow for different services to stop (intercity, regional and local) and reduce platform overloading but if you really want to increase capacity you'll have to sort out the junctions first.

The situation at Borough viaduct, as you say, is somewhat different because we’re actually looking at a SIX platform part of London Bridge where two platforms and two old viaduct tracks are dedicated to Thameslink, and four platforms and the two new viaduct tracks are only for Charing Cross bound trains.

So looking at Charing Cross services alone, a four platform station (platforms paired by direction) is succesfully feeding trains into a two track railway towards Waterloo East, which is another four platform station (but now paired by use). The peak throughput including the necessary flat crossing conflicts is normally about 28 tph isn’t it?

So is there any fundamental reason why a two track corridor cannot also link Man Picc and Oxford Road effectively?

 

[mr_jrt]

London Bridge now has only a short two-track section immediately west of it, but it's 4 tracks all the rest of the way to Charing Cross, including through Waterloo East:

 

[yorksrob]

So looking at Charing Cross services alone, a four platform station (platforms paired by direction) is succesfully feeding trains into a two track railway towards Waterloo East, which is another four platform station (but now paired by use). The peak throughput including the necessary flat crossing conflicts is normally about 28 tph isn’t it?

So is there any fundamental reason why a two track corridor cannot also link Man Picc and Oxford Road effectively?

That's a very good point. I guess the difference is that at Borough, there's only one flat junction to the west - between the fast and suburban lines to Charing Cross, whereas to the West of Castlefield, you've got lots of them.

 

[CW2]

The situation at Borough viaduct, as you say, is somewhat different because we’re actually looking at a SIX platform part of London Bridge where two platforms and two old viaduct tracks are dedicated to Thameslink, and four platforms and the two new viaduct tracks are only for Charing Cross bound trains.

So looking at Charing Cross services alone, a four platform station (platforms paired by direction) is successfully feeding trains into a two track railway towards Waterloo East, which is another four platform station (but now paired by use). The peak throughput including the necessary flat crossing conflicts is normally about 28 tph isn’t it?

So is there any fundamental reason why a two track corridor cannot also link Man Picc and Oxford Road effectively?

The situation is slightly different (although not entirely so) because in the example you quote you have trains from a number of points of origin heading to a common destination, i.e. Charing Cross. In the case of Manchester, you have a 2-track corridor which is fed by trains originating both locally and hundreds of miles away, at both ends of the corridor. So you add in the uncertainty of lack of punctuality, big differences in passenger flows, different traction types / train lengths, different dwell times, and the misguided politico-economic ideal that Manchester Airport must be linked to every village in the North West of England at least once an hour throughout the day.
The Castlefield Corridor will only improve if there is a radical reworking of the timetable, which will involve slaughtering a few sacred cows. The timetable for the entire North West would need to be written with this infrastructure at its core, so making best use of the whole Airport - Piccadilly - Oxford Road - Chat Moss / Salford Crescent / Victoria corridor is the key aim.

 

[Purple Orange]

In what sense can this not happen? The demolition involved would be surprisingly minimal, and it has been relatively actively planned by people in network rail at various points. It's off topic for this post, but it's certainly not just speculative forum dribble

Minimal demolition? You have been to Manchester right? For a start, which building would you knock down, the Palace Hotel or Oxford Place? Would you knock down the recently built HOME or build over Whitworth Street? And then there is a fairly significant development planned for the top of London Road and another further down by the UMIST building where the halls of residence buildings were. Those are just three locations, not withstanding all the various homes that are built right up against the line.

 

[edwin_m]

That's a very good point. I guess the difference is that at Borough, there's only one flat junction to the west - between the fast and suburban lines to Charing Cross, whereas to the West of Castlefield, you've got lots of them.

One flat junction in a busy area is relatively easy to deal with by timetabling, as long as performance is good so trains mostly arrive at exactly the expected time. Trains on the same route in opposite directions can then be timed to pass each other on the junction. If there are multiple flat junctions in quick succession that trick usually can't be pulled more than once and capacity has to reduce. This is one reason capacity at Castlefield can never approach that of Charing Cross or Thameslink, where a similar situation applies with the one flat junction south of Blackfriars.

The length of the double track at Borough Market doesn't really affect the capacity much, as long as it has no stations on it. Having two useable platforms in each direction at Piccadilly and Oxford Road would means that trains could use them alternately, so platform dwell and reoccupation times would probably no longer be the limiting factor in capacity (and if they still are they would be much less severe). Deansgate is still a problem as it only has one platform in each direction, so any train stopping there takes two paths, but I suspect clever timetabling may allow those gaps to coincide with gaps that are needed anyway to fit the flat junctions.

I don't believe four-tracking the corridor would help much, as the platform dwell and reoccupation times would constrain the frequency on each track so the total capacity wouldn't be much more than achievable by sorting out the two stations as previously planned. The extra tracks would have to continue to somewhere around Mayfield loop so some trains on the northern tracks could cross over onto other tracks before reaching the merge, otherwise the bottleneck east of Piccadilly would be just as bad as Castlefield Junction is now. As mentioned above, unless train routeings were simplified to an arrangement more like that of London Bridge, the number of crossing moves would probably kill any capacity benefit of continuous four-tracking.

If there is money to sort out this corridor then I suggest the first priority would be those platforms and the next would be to grade-separate Castlefield Junction, as this is where trains split out from the busy corridor so is probably most critical. There may just be space to build a flyover for the Up line from Cornbrook to rise up to the same level as Metrolink, pass right over the junction and merge back in the vicinity of an abolished Deansgate station. If this isn't possible then grade-separating Ordsall Lane would provide some degree of relief. But it would need some detailed simulation modelling to quantify the capacity and performance benefits.

 

[Bald Rick]

The demolition involved would be surprisingly minimal, and it has been relatively actively planned by people in network rail at various points.

It hasn’t - what has been actively planned is additional Platforms at Piccadilly and sorting out Oxford Road. That’s all you need; 4 tracking throughout would be a complete waste of money, as you couldn’t run any more trains than you would with just the extra platforms at Piccadilly / Oxford Rd.

 

[YorksLad12]

It hasn’t - what has been actively planned is additional Platforms at Piccadilly and sorting out Oxford Road. That’s all you need; 4 tracking throughout would be a complete waste of money, as you couldn’t run any more trains than you would with just the extra platforms at Piccadilly / Oxford Rd.

Thanks - I was about to enquire what it was I'd seen previously that involved a revised northern part of Oxford Road and a viaduct close to a listed pub near Piccadilly.

Dare I ask if we could see four-tracking in parts (Huddersfield-Ravensthorpe) with passive provision for later electrification rather than all in one go? And bringing it closer to (my) home: at some point might we need to bite the bullet and four-track between Leeds and Marsh Lane? Getting a viaduct in with two tracks was hard enough!

 

[Andyh82]

It hasn’t - what has been actively planned is additional Platforms at Piccadilly and sorting out Oxford Road. That’s all you need; 4 tracking throughout would be a complete waste of money, as you couldn’t run any more trains than you would with just the extra platforms at Piccadilly / Oxford Rd.

I agree. 4 platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, along with probably closing Deansgate would work perfectly well.

An alternative would be a flyover across the Piccadilly throat from the Guide Bridge side to the Castlefield side, but considering they’ve already built the Ordsall Chord and the fact 13&14 are in dire need of improvement in general, would lead me to discount this option

 

[LOL The Irony]

I agree. 4 platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, along with probably closing Deansgate would work perfectly well.

And a grade separation of Slade Lane.

 

[Jamesrob637]

And a grade separation of Slade Lane.

And knock down half of Longsight in the process?! Some might say that's no bad thing

 

[InOban]

An analysis in Modern Railways a few months ago showed that the biggest problem in operating the corridor arises from the multitude of flat crossings to the West. However both Oxford road and 13/14 need 4tracks so that trains can be signalled alternately into alternate faces of an island platform.

 

[jonesy3001]

An analysis in Modern Railways a few months ago showed that the biggest problem in operating the corridor arises from the multitude of flat crossings to the West. However both Oxford road and 13/14 need 4tracks so that trains can be signalled alternately into alternate faces of an island platform.

Is there enough room to 4 track between the 2 stations with all the buildings close to the track.

 

[Andyh82]

I agree. 4 platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, along with probably closing Deansgate would work perfectly well.

An alternative would be a flyover across the Piccadilly throat from the Guide Bridge side to the Castlefield side, but considering they’ve already built the Ordsall Chord and the fact 13&14 are in dire need of improvement in general, would lead me to discount this option

And also I should have mentioned, a new Oxford Road entrance towards the Deansgate side, to mitigate the closure of the latter should be included as well

 

[30907]

Is there enough room to 4 track between the 2 stations with all the buildings close to the track.

Doubtful, which is why only 4 platform tracks at each station are/were being proposed.

 

[mwmbwls]

Doubtful, which is why only 4 platform tracks at each station are/were being proposed.

Ordsall Chord Congestion. by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
Pinch points at Manchester Piccadilly station congestion by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

It is slightly more complicated than that. The recent Network Rail report indicated that the entire section needs extensive re-engineering as indicated in these diagrams. Indeed anything less than this is liable to make matters worse. Freight trains to and from Trafford Park also need to be removed but that would effectively require the relocation of the depot.

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Castlefield-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf