We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[markymark2000]

As noted in the article, while right now there may only be 1 freight train per hour, each way, another route to the terminals would mean more trains can run. Without removing passenger trains, there is no possible way of getting more freight through castlefields so the terminals are underutilised (based on capacity vs current utilisation, not taking into account any demand). If a new line means more freight.

Even if all freight trains run bang on time, there will always be some cases where passenger trains don't run to time and they need more recovery paths in the corridor to save a huge domino effect. Alternatively, you can put more passenger trains into the freight slot. I think somewhere in the many Castlefields discussions it was noted that 1 freight train takes up 2 passenger train paths on the corridor. 1 train may not seem like much but if passenger numbers recover to or even close to pre Covid levels, you could really do with the extra path to keep overcrowding to an acceptable level.

The above, plus reopening the line via Partington to Glazebrook, would provide connectivity to Liverpool, but the CLC line to Liverpool has little extra capacity for freight traffic. However, if part of the old GC line from Glazebrook towards Wigan via Culcheth was reopened to join the Chat Moss line close to the former Kenyon junction, additional connectivity could be provided. The CLC line via Baguley was historically used for a lot of through freight traffic.

There may not be space now but if the opportunities arise, it might enable some loops or something to accomodate freight. Otherwise you are opening up evening freight services when there are less trains. Currently any trains would have to snake around via Northwich and the WCML fitting around many trains there or have to go via Manchester which is often closed at night as maintenance for maintenance since it can't be done in the day.

 

[daodao]

As noted in the article, while right now there may only be 1 freight train per hour, each way, another route to the terminals would mean more trains can run. Without removing passenger trains, there is no possible way of getting more freight through castlefields so the terminals are underutilised (based on capacity vs current utilisation, not taking into account any demand). If a new line means more freight.

Even if all freight trains run bang on time, there will always be some cases where passenger trains don't run to time and they need more recovery paths in the corridor to save a huge domino effect. Alternatively, you can put more passenger trains into the freight slot. I think somewhere in the many Castlefields discussions it was noted that 1 freight train takes up 2 passenger train paths on the corridor. 1 train may not seem like much but if passenger numbers recover to or even close to pre Covid levels, you could really do with the extra path to keep overcrowding to an acceptable level.



There may not be space now but if the opportunities arise, it might enable some loops or something to accomodate freight. Otherwise you are opening up evening freight services when there are less trains. Currently any trains would have to snake around via Northwich and the WCML fitting around many trains there or have to go via Manchester which is often closed at night as maintenance for maintenance since it can't be done in the day.

While the freight diversion proposal is innovative, it is challenging and relatively expensive. A much cheaper solution is to remove most long-distance passenger trains, including all those run by TfW and TPE, off the Castlefield corridor, and cease running them to the Airport. Some additional sidings would need to built near Victoria so that the displaced trains can call/terminate there instead. The number of passenger trains running through the Castlefield corridor should not exceed 8 tph, with an additional 2 stopping tph from the CLC line terminating at Oxford Road. That will cure the Castlefield problem and allow 1-2 tph for freight as well.

 

[edwin_m]

Alternatively, you can put more passenger trains into the freight slot.

The freight slot doesn't run in the passenger peak hours, when it would be most needed for extra passenger trains or service resilience.

 

[Jozhua]

Finding multi-million pound solutions to move the occasional freight train out of the way is rather missing the point. By and large the freight trains run punctually and in the same slot every hour. The problem with the Castlefield Corridor is that passenger capacity has been oversold, and TOCs were financially incentivised to run short frequent services, rather than longer less-frequent ones. The demand model tells us that that is the optimum solution, right up to the point where performance collapses and the system disintegrates, then everybody looks at each other in wide-eyed amazement, and the culprits move on to another job and repeat the same mistakes.
There is much that could be done with retimetabling and different financial incentivisation of the TOCs rather than expensive schemes of any hue.

Yes, to be honest though I'd say the issue in Castlefield is two-pronged:
-Poor utilisation of capacity that already exists.
AND
-Low capacity due to limited platform space, flat junctions, conflicting moves, etc.

Passenger capacity has definately been oversold and the disaster looming with the Ordsall Chord should have been seen a long time ago. Perhaps it was nieve of Network Rail to assume the government would let them build the entire planned infrastructure scheme. May have been more sensible to build the new platforms first.

While the freight diversion proposal is innovative, it is challenging and relatively expensive. A much cheaper solution is to remove most long-distance passenger trains, including all those run by TfW and TPE, off the Castlefield corridor, and cease running them to the Airport. Some additional sidings would need to built near Victoria so that the displaced trains can call/terminate there instead. The number of passenger trains running through the Castlefield corridor should not exceed 8 tph, with an additional 2 stopping tph from the CLC line terminating at Oxford Road. That will cure the Castlefield problem and allow 1-2 tph for freight as well.

What I have to say to this, and the post quoted above, is that they want to run more freight trains, on top of facilitating the ones that already exist.

It's kind of madness to be running a half-mile freight train through a congested city centre rail corridor, so it would make sense to build a diversion scheme.

What we really need is a mixture of everything to "solve" Manchester's capacity issue. This is moving freight onto a new line, adding more platforms at Victoria AND building Piccadilly 15/16. We have longer trains now for TPE and Northern, which should go some ways to assisting with utilisation, just that damn EMR service that pulls in with a single 158 during rush hour...

 

[Halifaxlad]

It's kind of madness to be running a half-mile freight train through a congested city centre rail corridor, so it would make sense to build a diversion scheme.

I have often thought the same about Leeds ( I dare say)

 

[YorksLad12]

I have often thought the same about Leeds ( I dare say)

Ignoring what are now platforms 16 & 17, an east-west Leeds Avoiding Line would have been a Godsend... but would probably by now have passenger trains running on it to loop through Leeds instead of terminating and reversing from/to the west. Then we'd have to widen the eastern approach, and it was tough enough getting a twin-track viaduct built (some people still don't like it cutting off the views to the Parish Church).

 

[CW2]

It's kind of madness to be running a half-mile freight train through a congested city centre rail corridor, so it would make sense to build a diversion scheme.

Half a mile is an exaggeration.

As I stated earlier. the freights tend to run perfectly well in their hourly off-peak paths. To me "it's kind of madness" to be considering spending millions => billions of pounds to enable more short passenger trains to run. There will never be a business case for this. Yes, there are many and varied infrastructure options *, which you can do a pick-and-mix on. However until such time as somebody gets a grip on the timetabling of trains through this area, and reaches sensible conclusions on:
- maximum number of paths per direction per hour
- rational rethink of which services should serve Manchester Airport
- minimum number of vehicles on all trains serving Manchester Piccadilly 13/14
- contingency planning for late-running trains approaching the Castlefield Corridor
then the whole lot will continue to fester.

* I suspect the cheapest option would be to close the various Trafford Park intermodal terminals, and rebuild them somewhere else, releasing the land for re-use.

 

[furnessvale]

Half a mile is an exaggeration.

The longest freight trains are now 775m which, near as dammit, equals half a mile.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The longest freight trains are now 775m which, near as dammit, equals half a mile.

0.482 miles to be precise.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The longest freight trains are now 775m which, near as dammit, equals half a mile.

That's also almost 20 150s which would contain over 2000 seats and standing space for 2000 more people. They need off the corridor pronto.

 

[furnessvale]

That's also almost 20 150s which would contain over 2000 seats and standing space for 2000 more people. They need off the corridor pronto.

No need for that. Combining passenger trains before the corridor to a minimum of 6 coaches would release plenty of paths.

 

[The Planner]

That's also almost 20 150s which would contain over 2000 seats and standing space for 2000 more people. They need off the corridor pronto.

Im not sure that is a valid comparison, removing a freight path doesn't give you capacity to move 4000 people.

 

[Ianno87]

Im not sure that is a valid comparison, removing a freight path doesn't give you capacity to move 4000 people.

Plus moving freight and getting saving 60+ lorries a 200+ mile journey (and the environmental benefits of that) is potentially of higher economic value than a 331 to Hazel Grove.

 

[CW2]

The longest freight trains are now 775m which, near as dammit, equals half a mile.

How many of the freight trains which pass through the Castlefield Corridor in daylight hours are this length?

 

[Ianno87]

How many of the freight trains which pass through the Castlefield Corridor in daylight hours are this length?

I've personally seen a freight long enough to occupy Deansgate and Oxford Road platforms simultaneously.

 

[CW2]

I've personally seen a freight long enough to occupy Deansgate and Oxford Road platforms simultaneously.

That would be about 600 metres, maybe a little more.
I've not seen any 775m long trains through here in daylight. That's more than 2 locos + 40 freightliner flats. So whilst there was an aspiration from the FOCs to run longer trains, I don't believe they actually run at that length through here. Can anybody confirm?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How much would electrifying the CLC help with the Castlefield problem?

 

[ABB125]

How much would electrifying the CLC help with the Castlefield problem?

I suspect it would improve timekeeping, since the stoppers could use high acceleration EMUs, but wouldn't "solve" the problem much

 

[CW2]

I suspect it would improve timekeeping, since the stoppers could use high acceleration EMUs, but wouldn't "solve" the problem much

Maybe, but on past experience as soon as a TOC has better-performing traction the first thing it does is speed up the timetable, to help justify the expenditure on the electrification works, and attempt to run additional trains. Both of those outcomes are diametrically opposite of what is needed here.

 

[ABB125]

Maybe, but on past experience as soon as a TOC has better-performing traction the first thing it does is speed up the timetable, to help justify the expenditure on the electrification works, and attempt to run additional trains. Both of those outcomes are diametrically opposite of what is needed here.

True, but in the case if the CLC stoppers it's highly likely that the journey time could be significantly reduced and have better timekeeping.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, but in the case if the CLC stoppers it's highly likely that the journey time could be significantly reduced and have better timekeeping.

I do support wiring it, but you could get most of the gains now by using 195s.

 

[ABB125]

I do support wiring it, but you could get most of the gains now by using 195s.

"But we can't have shiny new high performance DMUs demoted to lowly stopping services!"

Although seemingly that doesn't apply to EMUs!

 

[Bletchleyite]

"But we can't have shiny new high performance DMUs demoted to lowly stopping services!"

Although seemingly that doesn't apply to EMUs!

London Midland, of course (absent wires) got this one very right by ordering the 172s specifically for stopping services!

 

[The Planner]

That would be about 600 metres, maybe a little more.
I've not seen any 775m long trains through here in daylight. That's more than 2 locos + 40 freightliner flats. So whilst there was an aspiration from the FOCs to run longer trains, I don't believe they actually run at that length through here. Can anybody confirm?

121 SLU, I doubt there are that many at that length. If I remember I will check the specially authorised loads list as anything that breaks a rule normally ends up in there as a "trial" @Freightmaster may know of some though.

 

[CW2]

When the Channel Tunnel opened, intermodal services were authorised to run at 750m = 118 SLU, that being the international maximum (although lower length limits applied on routes into Italy).
The various Channel Tunnel intermodal terminals - including Trafford Park - were built with this in mind.
At the time a lower length limit applied to services to / from Trafford Park, and no amount of persuasion or logic would persuade the local Area Operations Manager to lift it. Eventually we ran a trial with a pair of 90s and 118 SLU in the middle of the night. Whilst the extreme length of the train caused the junction occupation times to be extended by about 30 seconds, the main issue was in arriving and departing from Trafford Park itself, where a 10 mph limit was in force for all trains in or out of the sidings. That extended the time blocking the route to an unacceptable degree, so the existing length limit remained unchanged.

I posed the question about what trains now run at 775 metres as all this took place over 20 years ago, so I had no idea whether circumstances had changed at all. Seemingly not?

 

[LOL The Irony]

No need for that. Combining passenger trains before the corridor to a minimum of 6 coaches would release plenty of paths.

Im not sure that is a valid comparison, removing a freight path doesn't give you capacity to move 4000 people.

I was pointing out what you could fit within 775m, not saying you should run a 20x150 diagram.

 

[Jozhua]

I have often thought the same about Leeds ( I dare say)

I dare say, you're probably right!

That's also almost 20 150s which would contain over 2000 seats and standing space for 2000 more people. They need off the corridor pronto.

Lol yes, I guess, they would need to be the ones with Corridor connections tho lol.

No need for that. Combining passenger trains before the corridor to a minimum of 6 coaches would release plenty of paths.

Most trains are now reaching that length, only time will tell if this is enough to hold up with future demand. I think not.

And to be fair, I don't think frequency is entirely unwarranted. Many place's connections to the South & Midlands rely on changing at Piccadilly, so having more options in regards to trains there definitely does help.

The problem is with combining trains before they enter is:
-Increased journey times.
-Increased chance of knock-on delays.
-Confusing for passengers.
-Operationally complicated.

I've personally seen a freight long enough to occupy Deansgate and Oxford Road platforms simultaneously.

Probably!

I think in conclusion, how I see it is that Manchester is a fast growing city and its rail connects not only it, but a lot of other areas to each other. The Castlefield Corridor has been inadequate for a long time and something has to be done now, as the problem will only continue to get worse.

As cities look to remove car traffic, to reduce carbon emissions, congestion and pollution issues, the public transport network more widely needs to be able to absorb these journeys, which considering they are barely able to absorb existing ones isn't so good.

The lead times on railways are very long, so you need to plan for future needs, not just today's. Any less than Castlefield Corridor upgrades as planned, or a Thameslink-style tunnel beneath the city centre will be inadequate for the future.

I.e. Coronavirus "Killing" demand, because I know someone will mention it, remember it would take multiple years to deliver any infrastructure, so I highly doubt Covid will be a consideration then. In fact, around Manchester I have seen (and been on) many buses running basically full, and that's actually full, not "socially distanced full"! The road network is still pretty busy despite the lockdown, as are the trams. Once hospitality, events, holidays, etc restart, the rail network is going to see a significant pick up.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

As I understand, around 12 paths per hour exist between Castlefield and Piccadilly for passenger traffic. 2 additional paths exist to terminate the CLC stopper, and then you need some freight space.

If you nominally amend this to 12 paths per hour in all between Castlefield and Slade Lane, this would allow parallel movements to take place at Slade Lane and Castlefield for a quarter-hourly service to/from Stockport (all stations). That entirely satisfies the needs of Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, and therefore frees up the potential of 16 trains per hour on the fast / slow lines into / out of Piccadilly main shed.

Now focusing on the remaining 8 paths, and you would reasonably suggest all 8 could go to the Airport as a mix of stopping and fast trains. If you could divert the Edinburgh and Windermere trains down via Bolton to Victoria, you arguably make the space for 4tph round from Victoria and 4tph from a mix of CLC or Eccles.

And regarding Rochdale “killing” capacity, it doesn’t necessarily. Some Rochdale trains already come out of the bay platforms and cut across even more lines; so one could argue that services to/from Rochdale aren’t all that bad. The main thing is reducing terminating moves at Victoria to give more platform occupation time for through services, overall increasing reliability.

 

[Ianno87]

DfT has started consultation looking at 3 options to recast services to improve Castlefield performance:

https://twitter.com/philatrail/status/1349666252810301440?s=20

Untangling the web of services through the Castlefield Corridor is not going to be easy. Here's a short thread looking at the options DfT is putting forward with Network Rail and Transport for the North.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The third one is interesting - I guess those Piccadilly-North Wales services would run via Crewe?