We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Hey 3]

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,

Northern do not operate 175's at all.
Edit: I have realised the poster said if

 

[Jozhua]

So I was happy to bang the platforms 15/16 drum for a while and I do think it would be better than the existing setup. However, the clearer option is to move a few services such as Wigan and Bolton to a seperate underground tunnel stopping in the city centre proper and at Piccadilly to run a kind of Crossrail/Thameslink style service. Going out of the other side, services to Hazel Grove, Glossop, Marple, the airport and Alderley Edge/Hazel Grove could be mostly or entirely moved onto the new line. That way you reduce a lot of strain/conflict on Castlefield junctions, you add capacity to move people through the city centre (something that is beginning to prove challenging for the Metrolink) and you facilitate the cross-Manchester journeys much better.

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.

Part of the issue is that existing infrastructure is being used inefficiently because of other infrastructure bottlenecks. Looking at the Ordsall Chord, its capacity is massively held back by the fact the rest of the route simply cannot carry any more traffic.

I agree that short-term planning has definately lead to the downfall of the system. Metrolink conversions could help and Marple could be a better fit for trams than heavy rail (even when looking at proposed tunnels), especially if the service stops frequently.

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.

Yeah, I honestly think the DfT will have to be willing to allocate a larger capital budget if they are serious about not only solving the issues with running existing service, but also decreasing congestion in the city.

Electrification of lines such as Wigan/Southport and out to Stalybridge could help to reduce journey times, without having to cut too many stops. I think the key barrier for running more fast/semi-fast services may be the ability to run frequent service into/through the city centre. But unless you're going perticularly far or have express tracks, it's worth considering that a lot of longer journey times can be offset with increased frequency, as you spend less time waiting on the platform.

I think it would also be nice to simplify some of the routing, so it can be divided into lines that are relatively easy to follow, or at least create a pretty map with different colour lines, similar to what Merseyrail does. Manchester's rail network can be a pretty steep learning curve for someone new to the city, so having some effort towards creating "lines" versus these services that seemingly dart off anywhere could be useful. Better ticket and service integration with Metrolink would also help people navigate through the city a lot easier.

 

[HSTEd]

Modern high performance EMUs/electrodiesel MUs would allow paths to be saved by accelerating the stoppers to timings comparable to existing semi fasts or better, and dramatically reduce the time saved by skipping stops.

Electrification or 755s is going to be way cheaper than trying to do anything to the infrastructure in Castlefield et al.

 

[Ianno87]

So I was happy to bang the platforms 15/16 drum for a while and I do think it would be better than the existing setup.

OK, so if the consultation results in implementing Option A, B or C (or a variation thereof), and that is successful in stabilising performance....what is then the point of 15/16?

Do they still achieve anything? I'm suggesting the "problem" (in terms of required extra trains beyond the consultation level) would be reevaluate and the appropriate infrastructure interventions determined from this. Which may or may not be 15/16 any more.

 

[daodao]

Modern high performance EMUs/electrodiesel MUs would allow paths to be saved by accelerating the stoppers to timings comparable to existing semi fasts or better, and dramatically reduce the time saved by skipping stops.

Electrification or 755s is going to be way cheaper than trying to do anything to the infrastructure in Castlefield et al.

I agree. Additional infrastructure works along the Castlefield line, yet alone a rail tunnel under Manchester city centre, are really "pie in the sky". However, it might be worth building a couple of turnback sidings (at least 1 electrified) east of Victoria, given the lack of westbound terminating capacity there. Running inter-city style trains along the Castlefield line, using carriages with end doors only, is not ideal for Oxford Road station or Piccadilly platforms 13/14.

 

[Ianno87]

Running inter-city style trains along the Castlefield line, using carriages with end doors only, is not ideal for Oxford Road station or Piccadilly platforms 13/14.

But sorry to be a broken record, Options A, B or C may address this without any need for infrastructure at all. It's only "not ideal" if it still doesn't perform well after that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But sorry to be a broken record, Options A, B or C may address this without any need for infrastructure at all. It's only "not ideal" if it still doesn't perform well after that.

Lower frequencies with longer trains are the right thing to do but are a medium term fix. However, longer term the frequencies will need to increase as well, so we need to start thinking of what we are going to do to be ready in 2040-2050.

 

[Philip]

The problem with this plan being that the 175's most probably won't be released until 2023, as the 197's won't be fully introduced & this castlefield plan takes place in 2022.

The issues with plans A&C for TFW is the route learning for traincrew, at a time were half of Chester depot don't even sign the airport yet & have a huge backlog of 230 training on plus other covid related training issues.

Whatever is decided over the castlefield there will be big problems as a result, keeping the present services is far better for TFW.

Last I read the 175s were due to be off lease by May next year. Even if there are some delays in 197 introduction, it's fair to assume that there will be enough in service in a year to release a fair number of 175s, since it is the 175s that will be leaving TfW first.

Perhaps Northern crew could operate the proposed North Wales-Manchester via Northwich on behalf of TfW, from Chester eastwards, so that route learning isn't needed.

 

[Ianno87]

The consultation is just a sticking plaster for the bigger issues, Manchester is a growing city in need of far better rail infastructure.

The modernization of Oxford road & the P15/16 at Piccadilly are all part of the bigger plan, Piccadilly will be the hub especially with HS2 coming.

Moving TFW services to Victoria just moves the problems & not solved it really, or TFW services via Cheshire lines doesn't suit most passengers who want Oxford road or Piccadilly onward to the airport.

It's a shame rail infastructure takes a low priority in the big decisions being made.

Lower frequencies with longer trains are the right thing to do but are a medium term fix. However, longer term the frequencies will need to increase as well, so we need to start thinking of what we are going to do to be ready in 2040-2050.

Don't disagree.

But there's a risk of jumping to a long-term infrastructure solution (e.g. 15/16) without understanding the "problem" in terms of required train services.

Define the trains you want to run first (and in how many years' time they are required), and then determine the infrastructure solution from that, and how that is incrementally delivered.

 

[Greybeard33]

Don't disagree.

But there's a risk of jumping to a long-term infrastructure solution (e.g. 15/16) without understanding the "problem" in terms of required train services.

Define the trains you want to run first (and in how many years' time they are required), and then determine the infrastructure solution from that, and how that is incrementally delivered.

There is clearly an immediate "problem" in that the Task Force "solution", even if it achieves acceptable punctuality performance, does not provide sufficient frequency through Castlefield to satisfy key stakeholder requirements.

One major issue is that the Newcastle to Airport service is cut back to Victoria, either all day (Option B) or in the peaks (Option C). This fails to maintain either the long standing half hourly all day frequency from Yorkshire to Piccadilly and the Airport, or the 1tph direct service from Tyneside to Piccadilly and the Airport. Furthermore the frequency between Victoria and Piccadilly via the Ordsall Chord drops to 1tph, making the Chord effectively useless in respect of connectivity between the two stations.

Another major issue (Options B and C) is that the long standing half hourly frequency of the Warrington Central to Oxford Road stoppers is reduced to hourly outwith the peaks, only partly mitigated by additional semi-fast calls at some stations. This is likely to cause overcrowding in the medium/long term.

A third major issue is that the Oxford Road through platforms cannot accommodate trains longer than 6-car, while the bay cannot turn back trains longer than 4-car. In the medium/long term this will frustrate train lengthening to mitigate the frequency constraints.

It seems to me that the initial infrastructure solution to address all these issues should be remodelling of Oxford Road station, with four 200m through platforms, i.e. the Oxford Road part of the original Northern Hub Package C capacity scheme.

This would enable 4tph to be reliably turned back to the west in the centre roads, including 2tph of CLC stoppers, without crossing the western throat of the station as occurs with westbound departures from Platform 5 or 3 today. 9tph of passenger services through Piccadilly P13/14, including the Newcastle to Airport, should then be feasible all day, with future train lengthening up to 8-car to increase capacity.

This intervention should be deliverable for much less than the full package including Piccadilly P15/16. The Piccadilly scheme could be added as a later increment if the case could be made for additional through services.

 

[daodao]

One major issue is that the Newcastle to Airport service is cut back to Victoria, either all day (Option B) or in the peaks (Option C). This fails to maintain the long standing half hourly all day frequency from Yorkshire to Piccadilly...

The latter could be maintained by diverting 2 of the fast 4 tph TPE services from the West Riding and beyond via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly. The Airport extension is much less important; I don't understand the obsession with running long-distance trains to it.

Another major issue (Options B and C) is that the long standing half hourly frequency of the Warrington Central to Oxford Road stoppers is reduced to hourly outwith the peaks, only partly mitigated by additional semi-fast calls at some stations. This is likely to cause overcrowding in the medium/long term.

Removal of Standedge TPE services from the Castlefield line would release capacity for a half-hourly all day stopping service from Oxford Road westwards along the CLC line.

 

[HST43257]

The latter could be maintained by diverting 2 of the fast 4 tph TPE services from the West Riding and beyond via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly. The Airport extension is much less important; I don't understand the obsession with running long-distance trains to it.

Us in Yorkshire and the North East value our airport connection quite a lot from what I’ve gathered. Make people change at Man Airport, and you’ll see a good number of extra cars on the M62.

 

[Ianno87]

The latter could be maintained by diverting 2 of the fast 4 tph TPE services from the West Riding and beyond via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly. The Airport extension is much less important; I don't understand the obsession with running long-distance trains to it.

Don't make me tap the sign...

Removal of Standedge TPE services from the Castlefield line would release capacity for a half-hourly all day stopping service from Oxford Road westwards along the CLC line.

Is that more or less beneficial than keeping the TPE link to Castlefield? If how're removing one service, the net passenger benefits of the replacement service must exceed it in order to make best use of the network overall.

 

[daodao]

Us in Yorkshire and the North East value our airport connection quite a lot from what I’ve gathered. Make people change at Man Airport, and you’ll see a good number of extra cars on the M62.

Is that more or less beneficial than keeping the TPE link to Castlefield? If how're removing one service, the net passenger benefits of the replacement service must exceed it in order to make best use of the network overall.

IMO, it is more useful to provide a decent (minimum half hourly) suburban stopping service on all retained local lines into Manchester than providing "out-of-area" services to a regional airport which will be convenient to occasional passengers once or twice a year. If all TPE Standedge services are removed from the Castlefield line, there would be additional capacity to make the Chat Moss stopping service half-hourly as well as the CLC stopping service.

Ringway is not unique, and it is interesting that it has not been selected by the UK government as one of the international gateways to quarantine returning travellers during the current Covid epidemic. If Manchester Airport was a really important international gateway, why does British Airways, the UK's main international carrier, not make more use of it? I note that no US airline now serves it, and Hainan Airlines has also withdrawn its direct service to China; are not the USA and China the most important economies in the world?

In due course, there may be a link from Leeds and beyond to Manchester Airport via NPR/HS2b, if affordable given the dire effect Brexit may have on the UK economy in the longer-term.

 

[HST43257]

The alternative I’d suggest (post TRU only) is 2tph going on an upgraded Stockport to Stalybridge route, with a dedicated bus link (or a not so dedicated tram route) from Stockport to Man Airport.

I wouldn’t touch the Ashburys lines with complete expresses, leave this for high frequency commuter stuff.

 

[daodao]

Stockport to Stalybridge route,

This completely bypasses central Manchester, the principal destination for out-of-area travellers to Greater Manchester. it became redundant as a passenger line when Standedge line trains were re-routed to Piccadilly many years ago.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Perhaps Northern crew could operate the proposed North Wales-Manchester via Northwich on behalf of TfW, from Chester eastwards, so that route learning isn't needed.

They would need to learn the traction instead, and travel pass/ECS to Chester for the earlier trains towards Manchester (and the reverse in the evening).
Most inter TOC traincrew trading died fairly early in the franchising era although some does still survive.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Last I read the 175s were due to be off lease by May next year. Even if there are some delays in 197 introduction, it's fair to assume that there will be enough in service in a year to release a fair number of 175s, since it is the 175s that will be leaving TfW first.

Perhaps Northern crew could operate the proposed North Wales-Manchester via Northwich on behalf of TfW, from Chester eastwards, so that route learning isn't needed.

195s apparently don't fit between Hale & Northwich, so that needs sorting fairly urgently if they want the 197s to replace the 175s that do fit. The alternatives are keeping some 175s for the route, scrap the TfW plan and give the 2nd train to Northern or have Northern take the 175s and they jointly operate the route.

If they do use 197s and Northern staff between Manchester and Chester, will they take 195 staff, train them on the route and give them a conversion course for the 197 or take competent Mid Cheshire Line staff and train them on 195s & 7s?

 

[LittleAH]

IMO, it is more useful to provide a decent (minimum half hourly) suburban stopping service on all retained local lines into Manchester than providing "out-of-area" services to a regional airport which will be convenient to occasional passengers once or twice a year.

Sorry, but this is not just a regional airport like Lees/Bradford - it's an international airport with flights all across the globe which is also set to expand. Direct services are extremely viable to Yorkshire/North East

In due course, there may be a link from Leeds and beyond to Manchester Airport via NPR/HS2b, if affordable given the dire effect Brexit may have on the UK economy in the longer-term.

A quick reminder that any country like the UK's economy is not like a household economy... it is affordable if those in power want to do it.

 

[YorksLad12]

Sorry, but this is not just a regional airport like Lees/Bradford - it's an international airport with flights all across the globe which is also set to expand. Direct services are extremely viable to Yorkshire/North East

Sorry to be a pedant, but until fairly recently it was called Leeds Bradford International Airport. If LBA is regional, so is MIA (DSA certainly is). But anyone with any sense goes to Manchester because it's larger and has more destinations, even if some of them are via calls at Gatwick rather than direct.

 

[HST43257]

This completely bypasses central Manchester, the principal destination for out-of-area travellers to Greater Manchester.

It’s an airport alternative/connection. It also provides more connectivity for the Stockport, Crewe and Stoke area. Remember 4tph would still be going to Manchester itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s an airport alternative/connection. It also provides more connectivity for the Stockport, Crewe and Stoke area. Remember 4tph would still be going to Manchester itself.

The route (Stockport-Stalybridge) would be useful as a half-hourly local service from Stockport bays to Manchester Victoria east-facing bays (there is a west-facing curve). There aren't paths for it pre-HS2, but post-HS2 reinstating it would be worth considering. But it doesn't make sense to send TPEs that way. Manchester City Centre is the primary traffic objective and bypassing it with long distance services makes no sense at all.

 

[Ianno87]

IMO, it is more useful to provide a decent (minimum half hourly) suburban stopping service on all retained local lines into Manchester than providing "out-of-area" services to a regional airport which will be convenient to occasional passengers once or twice a year.

It's not just about the Airport. In fact it's barely about the Airport at all. Keeping Leeds etc directly linked to Oxford Road and the University is more valuable, whilst keeping the fast 4tph service concentrated at Victoria. The Airport is merely the side consequence of this.

 

[HST43257]

The route would be useful as a half-hourly local service from Stockport bays to Manchester Victoria east-facing bays (there is a west-facing curve). There aren't paths for it pre-HS2, but post-HS2 reinstating it would be worth considering. But it doesn't make sense to send TPEs that way. Manchester City Centre is the primary traffic objective and bypassing it with long distance services makes no sense at all.

I don’t see 6tph being needed for Leeds to Manchester. Man Airport still needs serving and if anything that is TPE can avoid Castlefield then so much the better. Connectivity to south of Manchester, as I say, could be important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t see 6tph being needed for Leeds to Manchester.

I don't either - reduce it to 4 of longer trains. However no InterCity trains that run near Manchester city centre should bypass it. This is another attempt at dog-wagging.

Man Airport still needs serving and if anything that is TPE can avoid Castlefield then so much the better. Connectivity to south of Manchester, as I say, could be important.

Manchester Airport will be served by other services from Manchester Piccadilly and by HS2.

 

[HST43257]

I don't either - reduce it to 4 of longer trains. However no InterCity trains that run near Manchester city centre should bypass it. This is another attempt at dog-wagging.
Manchester Airport will be served by other services from Manchester Piccadilly and by HS2.

Think pre-HS2. Castlefield is a mess and, as you’ve said in the past, a good way to stop that is to take as many long distance trains off as possible. No NE TPE and, look, 2 less tph over castlefield, and 4tph still serving Manchester.

Also, where would you send 6tph? I’d say 2tph to Stockport, 2tph to Liverpool (semi fast) and 2tph to Liverpool (express), unless somewhere like Warrington or Bolton would have any use.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, where would you send 6tph? I’d say 2tph to Stockport, 2tph to Liverpool (semi fast) and 2tph to Liverpool (express), unless somewhere like Warrington or Bolton would have any use.

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed and 2 going to Liverpool via Victoria. Having 6 is kind of contingent on using Ordsall, though I suppose you could terminate them at Victoria bays, which would mean you'd avoid using Ordsall and could have one to each destination* from Vic and just to the busiest two destinations from Picc.

* There are 4 North TPE destinations - Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Hull. I suspect Newcastle and Middlesbrough are likely to be the two busier ones justifying the second train per hour, going to Picc.

 

[daodao]

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed and 2 going to Liverpool via Victoria.

At least someone agrees with me on this thread.

 

[HST43257]

I'd reduce it to 4, 2 terminating in Manchester Piccadilly main trainshed

Not too much of a fan given my high frequency commuter stuff I’ve talked about up thread I believe.

2 going to Liverpool via Victoria. Having 6 is kind of contingent on using Ordsall, though I suppose you could terminate them at Victoria bays, which would mean you'd avoid using Ordsall and could have one to each destination* from Vic and just to the busiest two destinations from Picc.

The issue is that the Airport is a fairly important one for those in Yorkshire in my experience. You have to do Castlefield or Stockport in my view, and Stockport provides the wider benefits of cutting the corner and providing extra connectivity.

* There are 4 North TPE destinations - Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Hull. I suspect Newcastle and Middlesbrough are likely to be the two busier ones justifying the second train per hour, going to Picc.

I would say Newcastle and Hull for 2tph, given what is supposed to happen on NPR. Only issue is that Hull services weren’t often busy in my pre covid experiences (Note: I mainly used Selby to Hull on Saturdays so perhaps I’m not the best judge), but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Purple Orange]

When talking about reducing TPE to 4 tph, what do folk th8nk will happen to the stoppers that currently go in to Piccadilly?

If the airport is being missed out, why not send all TPE fasts to Liverpool via Victoria, rather than splitting them between two stations?