We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Greybeard33]

A lot of times posts on the forums correct misconceptions, or explain things to people to clarify why a seemingly straightforward solution isn't what it first appeared to be. People who've had the discussions on here can then go to a public consultation and make a far more substantive and considered contribution, which will be taken into account by those running the consultation.

Other times it's just fun and interesting to have a discussion with like-minded people where you don't get glowering looks from family members bored of hearing you bang on about trains.

It would not be surprising if someone on the Manchester Recovery Task Force has taken the time to read this thread and the other relevant threads on RailUK. They might discover issues that they have overlooked in developing their options.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would not be surprising if someone on the Manchester Recovery Task Force has taken the time to read this thread and the other relevant threads on RailUK. They might discover issues that they have overlooked in developing their options.

Things have certainly happened that were suggested on here on a number of occasions. Whether that's coincidence or not is of course for the reader to decide

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why even bother contributing or reading a forum?

Indeed so. There are those who appear not able to control their need to "hold forth" in a most self-important manner and are not averse to straying "off topic" in order to fulfil their need for expression.

The phrase "off-topic" must surely apply to many postings made upon this thread when you consider what the thread purports to be a matter such as the Ordsall Chord.

 

[Purple Orange]

Indeed so. There are those who appear not able to control their need to "hold forth" in a most self-important manner and are not averse to straying "off topic" in order to fulfil their need for expression.

The phrase "off-topic" must surely apply to many postings made upon this thread when you consider what the thread purports to be a matter such as the Ordsall Chord.

I stray ‘off topic’ all the time, but if it is relevant to the conversation then I think it is fine in my opinion. Ironically, this very conversation you instigated has nothing to do with Castlefield or railways in any shape.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that if anyone has any concerns regarding any post, these concerns should not be posted on the forum; instead we ask that the report button is used please.

In the case of off topic posts, please report the first off topic post (if you can include details of any subsequent off topic posts this would be greatly appreciated; post numbers can be very helpful).

Our forum rules do require posts to be on topic, though we recognise this can be difficult at times, and we do provide more leniency in this area in the Speculative Ideas section, due to the nature of these discussions

If anyone has any questions please contact us directly.

Thanks

 

[Ianno87]

It would not be surprising if someone on the Manchester Recovery Task Force has taken the time to read this thread and the other relevant threads on RailUK. They might discover issues that they have overlooked in developing their options.

Absolutely.

Indeed so. There are those who appear not able to control their need to "hold forth" in a most self-important manner and are not averse to straying "off topic" in order to fulfil their need for expression.

The phrase "off-topic" must surely apply to many postings made upon this thread when you consider what the thread purports to be a matter such as the Ordsall Chord.

The number of layers of irony involved in being unable to control making that off-topic post...


(Sorry, I know I'm ignoring the mods warning, but it has to be said...)

 

[Jozhua]

A lot of times posts on the forums correct misconceptions, or explain things to people to clarify why a seemingly straightforward solution isn't what it first appeared to be. People who've had the discussions on here can then go to a public consultation and make a far more substantive and considered contribution, which will be taken into account by those running the consultation.

Other times it's just fun and interesting to have a discussion with like-minded people where you don't get glowering looks from family members bored of hearing you bang on about trains.

Sometimes you need to just vent your frustrations at the lack of inaction by the DaFT to resolve the issue and the complete public transport illiteracy of the media.

But yes, I personally have campaigned IRL, sent letters to MPs, in regards to this subject and others.

Castlefield is an interesting one because people don't nessacerily realise why the trains are late, simply blaming "Northern" for their miseries, forgetting that they don't really have much control over the tracks they are running on. Tbh, this situation is common among many TOCs as well.

 

[Ianno87]

Sometimes you need to just vent your frustrations at the lack of inaction by the DaFT to resolve the issue and the complete public transport illiteracy of the media.

DfT are so inactive, they are quite literally running a consultation on resolving the issue?

 

[Jozhua]

DfT are so inactive, they are quite literally running a consultation on resolving the issue?

Approximately five years late. And after scrapping the package C works.

An infrastructure solution is really needed, but an operational one appears to be all we get.

 

[daodao]

Approximately five years late. And after scrapping the package C works.

An infrastructure solution is really needed, but an operational one appears to be all we get.

If existing infrastructure is being used inefficiently, the number one priority is to make better use of it, and only then consider additional infrastructure.

The fundamental problems with Manchester' rail infrastructure are due to the down-sizing many years ago and understandable failure to anticipate the more recent (until Covid) increase in rail use. The number one mistake (viewed with a retrospectoscope) was the attempt to focus services on Piccadilly and the Castlefield line and slim down Victoria. Infrastructure improvements to the Castlefield line would be very expensive, partly as it is on a viaduct, which is presumably why the DfT/Treasury is baulking at the cost.

If an operational solution doesn't provide sufficient mitigation, the cheapest infrastructure solution is to build more capacity (e.g. extra sidings) to enable more long distance trains to terminate at Victoria, so that they can be removed from the Castlefield line (other than Liverpool to Sheffield via the CLC line). Releasing ex-GC platform capacity at Piccadilly by converting the Piccadilly-Reddish-Marple Rose Hill line to Metrolink would enable more Standedge line trains to terminate there, also relieving pressure on Victoria as well as the Castlefield line.

 

[Ianno87]

If existing infrastructure is being used inefficiently, the number one priority is to make better use of it, and only then consider additional infrastructure.

The fundamental problems with Manchester' rail infrastructure are due to the down-sizing many years ago and understandable failure to anticipate the more recent (until Covid) increase in rail use. The number one mistake (viewed with a retrospectoscope) was the attempt to focus services on Piccadilly and the Castlefield line and slim down Victoria. Infrastructure improvements to the Castlefield line would be very expensive, partly as it is on a viaduct, which is presumably why the DfT/Treasury is baulking at the cost.

If an operational solution doesn't provide sufficient mitigation, the cheapest infrastructure solution is to build more capacity (e.g. extra sidings) to enable more long distance trains to terminate at Victoria, so that they can be removed from the Castlefield line (other than Liverpool to Sheffield via the CLC line). Releasing ex-GC platform capacity at Piccadilly by converting the Piccadilly-Reddish-Marple Rose Hill line to Metrolink would enable more Standedge line trains to terminate there, also relieving pressure on Victoria as well as the Castlefield line.

Assuming that the consultation results in achieving the objective of a stable timetable on the current infrastructure, then there needs to be a re-baselining of future demand need and what further services are needed from each corridor to meet demand (that cannot be met by train lengthening), and then determine the infrastructure requirement from that, to allow those services (rather than "here's some infrastructure, how do we use it?")

One thing I will repeat is there is zero value in returning core TPE services back to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, as is this is a net worsenment to journey times and connectivity on a valuable flow.

 

[Purple Orange]

Assuming that the consultation results in achieving the objective of a stable timetable on the current infrastructure, then there needs to be a re-baselining of future demand need and what further services are needed from each corridor to meet demand (that cannot be met by train lengthening), and then determine the infrastructure requirement from that, to allow those services (rather than "here's some infrastructure, how do we use it?")

One thing I will repeat is there is zero value in returning core TPE services back to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, as is this is a net worsenment to journey times and connectivity on a valuable flow.

Surely a TPE service that terminates at Piccadilly would not have a net ‘worsenment’? If it was crossing the entire throat to P14 or reversing to the airport, I can see the problem.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely a TPE service that terminates at Piccadilly would not have a net ‘worsenment’? If it was crossing the entire throat to P14 or reversing to the airport, I can see the problem.

Yes, because it would be slower to Piccadilly than the time that can be achieved to Victoria.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, because it would be slower to Piccadilly than the time that can be achieved to Victoria.

It’s not drastically slower, but slower nonetheless. This is where we need to see infrastructure improvements too and I hope to see the link through Guide Bridge dealt with as part of TRU.

 

[daodao]

Assuming that the consultation results in achieving the objective of a stable timetable on the current infrastructure, then there needs to be a re-baselining of future demand need and what further services are needed from each corridor to meet demand (that cannot be met by train lengthening), and then determine the infrastructure requirement from that, to allow those services (rather than "here's some infrastructure, how do we use it?")

One thing I will repeat is there is zero value in returning core TPE services back to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge, as is this is a net worsenment to journey times and connectivity on a valuable flow.

I agree with the first paragraph.

The benefit in diverting 2 tph TPE services that don't run west of Manchester to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-3 is to make best use of limited capacity at Manchester stations. These 2 tph currently call at or pass all 5 Manchester stations (Victoria/Salford Central/Deansgate/Oxford Road/Piccadilly (platforms 13/14), which is wasteful of infrastructure; just calling at 1 Manchester station (Piccadilly) would be adequate. Connectivity from the Standedge line to Piccadilly (and stations beyond by changing trains) would be preserved. It wouldn't take longer from Stalybridge to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge than on the roundabout route via the Ordsall curve, albeit it would be slightly slower than from Stalybridge to Victoria. As there would still be 2 fast tph from Leeds to Victoria (and onwards to Liverpool), adequate connectivity at Victoria would be preserved.

There aren't quite the same issues splitting a 4 tph service to call at different stations on an alternate (half-hourly) basis as splitting a 2 tph service to call at different stations on an alternate (hourly) basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because it would be slower to Piccadilly than the time that can be achieved to Victoria.

Offset by more people wanting Pic than Vic.

 

[Glenn1969]

But you keep telling us they can use the tram, change trains or walk

 

[Ianno87]

I agree with the first paragraph.

The benefit in diverting 2 tph TPE services that don't run west of Manchester to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-3 is to make best use of limited capacity at Manchester stations. These 2 tph currently call at or pass all 5 Manchester stations (Victoria/Salford Central/Deansgate/Oxford Road/Piccadilly (platforms 13/14), which is wasteful of infrastructure; just calling at 1 Manchester station (Piccadilly) would be adequate.

That's only a benefit if there are additional services that could make use of the "released capacity" on Castlefirld as a result.

Connectivity from the Standedge line to Piccadilly (and stations beyond by changing trains) would be preserved. It wouldn't take longer from Stalybridge to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge than on the roundabout route via the Ordsall curve, albeit it would be slightly slower than from Stalybridge to Victoria. As there would still be 2 fast tph from Leeds to Victoria (and onwards to Liverpool), adequate connectivity at Victoria would be preserved.

There aren't quite the same issues splitting a 4 tph service to call at different stations on an alternate (half-hourly) basis as splitting a 2 tph service to call at different stations on an alternate (hourly) basis.

That is quite a dent in the Generalised Journey Time from Manchester to Leeds / York, when your perception of the service is pretty much reduced from 4tph to 2tph. No longer "turn up and go" from one station.

Offset by more people wanting Pic than Vic.

Do they? People generally want Manchester City centre, which arguably Victoria is slightly more convenient for (shopping areas or the offices around John Dalton Street/Spinningfields etc). The only specific benefit of Piccadilly is for the University area.

 

[Hey 3]

That's only a benefit if there are additional services that could make use of the "released capacity" on Castlefirld as a result.



That is quite a dent in the Generalised Journey Time from Manchester to Leeds / York, when your perception of the service is pretty much reduced from 4tph to 2tph. No longer "turn up and go" from one station.




Do they? People generally want Manchester City centre, which arguably Victoria is slightly more convenient for (shopping areas or the offices around John Dalton Street/Spinningfields etc). The only specific benefit of Piccadilly is for the University area.

Manchester Piccadilly is also convenient to the city centre(if you think that it also has tram connections to where people want to go).

 

[Greybeard33]

It wouldn't take longer from Stalybridge to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge than on the roundabout route via the Ordsall curve, albeit it would be slightly slower than from Stalybridge to Victoria.

The Stalybridge to Victoria route will be considerably quicker than Stalybridge to Piccadilly once the TRU enhancements, already in progress, are completed. This substantial infrastructure investment in the Ashton line includes remodelling Miles Platting and Stalybridge Junctions, increases in linespeed and electrification.

In contrast the Stalybridge remodelling will further increase the journey time via the 40mph branch line from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge.

 

[Ianno87]

Manchester Piccadilly is also convenient to the city centre(if you think that it also has tram connections to where people want to go).

The point is that both Picc and Vic are convenient, so the majority of passengers from the Leeds direction won't care which one they end up at. The Ordsall Chord is the way of serving both whilst keeping the fast journey time and 4tph service at Vic.

 

[YorksLad12]

People generally want Manchester City centre, which arguably Victoria is slightly more convenient for (shopping areas or the offices around John Dalton Street/Spinningfields etc). The only specific benefit of Piccadilly is for the University area.

And Transport for the North...

There are a few government-related offices around Piccadilly Station; TfN and TfGM across the road, and various departmental branches on Store Street. I think of Pic as being for business, Vic as being for leisure. Oxford Road for the Unis.

 

[Greybeard33]

Assuming that the consultation results in achieving the objective of a stable timetable on the current infrastructure, then there needs to be a re-baselining of future demand need and what further services are needed from each corridor to meet demand (that cannot be met by train lengthening), and then determine the infrastructure requirement from that, to allow those services (rather than "here's some infrastructure, how do we use it?")

Demand from each corridor into Manchester can be met by train lengthening for the foreseeable future without any infrastructure interventions (except maybe platform lengthening). Capacity can be hugely increased before all trains reach the 240m max length of the London area.

But stakeholders have aspirations other than just more seats, e.g:

• Improved frequency from particular stations in a corridor
• Journey time improvement from more distant stations (i.e. provision of fast/semi-fast services, quicker connections/fewer changes)
• Direct, frequent services to the Central Manchester station(s) of choice
• Through cross city services between specific pairs of corridors
• More frequent connections between Victoria and Piccadilly via Ordsall Chord.

With a limited budget, it is clearly impossible to satisfy everybody. But if it is accepted that some infrastructure enhancements are affordable, then all the conflicting aspirations have to be prioritised in order to determine which combination of interventions will deliver the best value for money. Probably the best methodology is the combination of train performance simulation and passenger demand modelling that the Task Force used to assess its timetable options, i.e. how many extra passenger journeys would each option generate.

Hopefully the Integrated Rail Plan might allocate a budget for Central Manchester enhancements. Then candidate interventions can be selected from the list in the Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report for trade studies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I certainly think there should be a plan for platform lengthenings to allow all Manchester area commuter services to be 6 x 24m, which is close to the South East "minimum standard" of 8 x 20m.

 

[Hey 3]

I certainly think there should be a plan for platform lengthenings to allow all Manchester area commuter services to be 6 x 24m, which is close to the South East "minimum standard" of 8 x 20m.

Andy Burnham has a plan in his rail plans to make all platforms 8 cars.

 

[AGH]

I work in Spinningfields and Salford Central (a station deserving a rename) should be developed to allow access to more routes / services which would relieve some pressure. An Eastern loop electrified to allow trains to go Vic to Pic would help also i think and the basic infrastructure is there. Slightly lengthening Victoria so mid platform crossovers seems logical as well. I use Vic a lot and sitting trains in the platforms is grossly inefficient. Is there room for platforms 7&8 at the Salford end on an abandoned viaduct? You can't just path your way out of this mess.

 

[daodao]

More frequent connections between Victoria and Piccadilly via Ordsall Chord.

This is a significant contribution to the current problems, as trains using it end up stopping at or passing through all 5 of central Manchester's stations. Manchester's rail services would be improved if this piece of infrastructure was taken out of routine passenger use. It would be better if trains to/from Manchester called at north side or south side stations, not both, as doing the latter is wasteful of limited available capacity.

 

[Ianno87]

I work in Spinningfields and Salford Central (a station deserving a rename) should be developed to allow access to more routes / services which would relieve some pressure. An Eastern loop electrified to allow trains to go Vic to Pic would help also i think and the basic infrastructure is there. Slightly lengthening Victoria so mid platform crossovers seems logical as well. I use Vic a lot and sitting trains in the platforms is grossly inefficient. Is there room for platforms 7&8 at the Salford end on an abandoned viaduct? You can't just path your way out of this mess.

The consultation proposals aim to address Victoria by reducing or eliminating terminating services fromthe West.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2021 ==

This is a significant contribution to the current problems, as trains using it end up stopping at or passing through all 5 of central Manchester's stations. Manchester's rail services would be improved if this piece of infrastructure was taken out of routine passenger use. Trains to Manchester should either call at north side or south side stations, not both, which is wasteful of limited capacity.

All of Options A, B and C address the problems whilst retaining use and benefits of the Ordsall Chord.

 

[Philip]

If Option C goes ahead, would 175s still be permitted to take over from 195s in running the Manchester to Cumbria service, given that it will still be routed through Castlefield (assuming they go to Northern!)? I'm thinking about the issue of end doors at Piccadilly 13/14.

Also would 175s be permitted for Manchester to Southport if they go to Northern? I'm thinking about Wallgate tunnel, knowing 153s are banned.

It certainly would be a sweetener for Southport councillors/rail user groups angry at the loss of direct Piccadilly/Airport services, if 175s replaced the Sprinters on their line! They'd be a better option than 769s,

 

[Purple Orange]

This is a significant contribution to the current problems, as trains using it end up stopping at or passing through all 5 of central Manchester's stations. Manchester's rail services would be improved if this piece of infrastructure was taken out of routine passenger use. It would be better if trains to/from Manchester called at north side or south side stations, not both, as doing the latter is wasteful of limited available capacity.

That would be short sighted. Manchester’s network is a structure that is partially complete and we’re going to have to wait 15 years before it sees the light of day. Only then will a loop from Piccadilly to Victoria using all 5 stations will be of any use, free of TPE services and facilitate metro frequencies through the core.