How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[sjm77]

Plus if you want a shuttle service you need platforms at Picc for both it and the TPE services it replaces between Picc and MIA to terminate at. I thought lack of those was why services went to the Airport in the first place?

This is a problem unless you have an S-bahn type set up;
Rochdale / Staly - Victoria - Deansgate - Oxford Rd - Picc - Airport.

Use P13/14 only for services to the Airport/Styal Line

 

[Fokx]

A shuttle service to/from the Airport is an abysmal idea.

All you would then be doing is forcing ALL Airport passengers to change at either Manchester Pic 13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate or Manchester Victoria.

So now do you not only have the passengers who would usually travel to/from the city with family members, kids, prams and luggage. You’re now adding those travelling to the North West, North East, Scotland, Sheffield, Wales and Scotland into the mix increasing the number of passengers attempting to board and alight such trains with a minimal station dwell time and expecting them to run smoothly and on-time, it’s never going to happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2021 ==

Use P13/14 only for services to the Airport/Styal Line

And the Cheshire line services terminate where exactly?

 

[Rhydgaled]

A shuttle service to/from the Airport is an abysmal idea.

All you would then be doing is forcing ALL Airport passengers to change at either Manchester Pic 13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate or Manchester Victoria.

So now do you not only have the passengers who would usually travel to/from the city with family members, kids, prams and luggage. You’re now adding those travelling to the North West, North East, Scotland, Sheffield, Wales and Scotland into the mix increasing the number of passengers attempting to board and alight such trains with a minimal station dwell time and expecting them to run smoothly and on-time, it’s never going to happen.

For a pure Airport-Victoria/Piccadilly shuttle then yes, your comments apply. But what about a variation on what sjm77 wrote above you (who seems to have left out the fact that there is nowhere else for services from Warrington Central to go than through the Castlefield corridor)? Essentially, what you would have through the Castlefield corridor would be:

• Liverpool - Warrington Central - Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 - Mancester Airport services*,
• Rochdale - Manchester Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 - Mancester Airport services*,
• Rochdale - Manchester Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 - Styal - Crewe services* (or would you might want these to run via the Airport and reverse),
• Freight services to/from Trafford Park as required,
• Stalybridge - Manchester Victoria - Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 - Mancester Airport services* and
• Liverpool - Warrington Central - Manchester Piccadilly 13/14 - Sheffield services**(continuing to either Cleethorpes or Nottingham, perhaps with a possibility of the latter going further to Grantham or even Norwich)

* exact frequency of each of these open to discussion, and some could terminate at Oxford Road instead of continuing through PICC 13/14 or you could have a Liverpool - Chat Moss stopper doing that
** once per hour only

 

[thecouncillor]

When I wrote to the people doing the consultation, I was trying to discuss in detail the various issues involving the various crossovers, turnbacks and rationalising.

I effectively asked:
- Can the Loco Hauled TPE services be operated jointly, aka the Scarborough and Redcar, to be a half-hourly Victoria starter using the turnback and potentially interworking as the stock would be arriving on that side of the layout.
- Can the Liverpool services be formed of a mix of 6/185 and 5/802, so as to provide your hourly 5/802 to Newcastle and hourly 6/185 to Hull. These being "fast" (aka not Staly and not Dewsbury).
- Can the local services run into Piccadilly using a mix of 3/185 and 6/185, all stops (some tweaks to calling patterns perhaps, and of course replacing the Huddersfield to Castleford shuttle by having one of those 2tph as a 3/185 TPE).

- Can the Airport service from Victoria, be a service from Stalybridge, and use either 4/150 or 6/150 to be a capacity buster. Ashton stops, and of course same side of the layout at Victoria. That opens up services towards Wigan Wallgate all coming from the Rochdale side. I would have said a 4/150 or 6/150 from Staly - Vic - Ox - Picc - Airport would be sensible.

- Can the diesel services from Warrington Central (as they will be) stopping via Flixton go to Buxton, so that you have a regular half-hourly 4/150 to Buxton? This also means all services from Warrington Central going to Stockport, because the half-hourly Liverpool / Warrington / Manchester / Stockport / Sheffield then Cleethorpes and Nottingham would be overlaid. To get the faster Cleethorpes / Nottingham trains in front of the Buxton ones, as would be needed eastbound (they'd be behind them at Oxford Road), the Buxton trains just need to stop at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, and probably have a 2-3 minute stop at Stockport. The same applies in reverse, e.g. the Cleethorpes and Nottingham trains stop next to the Buxton - Warringtons at Stockport, and then overtake them and run ahead of them at Slade Lane. It transpires that with some 'padding' of a minimal amount you could get the moves at Castlefield and Slade Lane done beautifully.

- If you assume off-peak trains from Windermere or Barrow would go to Airport, at peak they are unsuitable as they're too short. But if you run a combined half-hourly frequency from Preston to Airport via Bolton off-peak, using a mix of NT 3/195 on Windermere / Barrow and TP 5/397 from Glasgow / Edinburgh, at peak you would still be running the 5/397 but would want something to replace the 3/195. As we now know Preston TPE will sign 5/802, can they be contracted to provide the capacity buster "other path" and therefore have a half-hourly 5 Car IC EMU from Preston to Airport via Bolton? Thus, the 5/802 can run from Windermere (!) if wanted, or Oxenholme, or just Lancaster / Preston. Or of course from Scotland. NT 3/195 from Barrow / Windermere would then dash off to Liverpool via St Helens at peak times, where the capacity isn't as heavily required, but it would give that added fast service.

- Wigan then loses fast trains, so if you assume 4tph from Wallgate to Victoria (2tph via Bolton, 2tph via Walkden), then you offer an hourly high-peak service from North Western via Eccles to Airport, and an hourly high-peak service from North Western via Walkden to Airport (providing that 3tph at the biggest stations). That would get the extra half-hourly service to Airport at peak and give destination variety. You could theoretically use 6/323 or 6/331 (or something else) for that, and even start them back at Preston or Blackpool and again give big extra capacity.

Realistically that would give you something at peak time like:
- 2tph Warrington Central to Buxton via Ox / Picc
- 2tph Liverpool Lime St to Cleethorpes / Notts via Ox / Picc
- 2tph Blackpool North to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc
- 1tph Edinburgh / Glasgow to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc
- 1tph "Somewhere" to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc (5/802)
- 2tph Southport to Rochdale via Bolton / Vic
- 1tph Kirkby to Blackburn via Walkden / Vic / Rochdale
- 1tph Wallgate to Leeds via Walkden / Vic / Hebden / Dewsbury
- 1tph Wigan NW to Airport via Walkden / Ox / Picc
- 1tph Wigan NW / Preston / Blackpool to Airport via Eccles / Ox / Picc (calls at Eccles for Metrolink and MediaCity)
- 2tph Stalybridge to Airport via Vic / Ox / Picc

That's 8tph from Ox and Picc to Airport, which seems perfectly good. And 6tph are Northern, 2tph are TPE fast. Higher accelerating traction types also means being able, for example, to allow the 6/331 to be the all stops; with the others doing mixed stops.

Overlaying:
- 2tph Liverpool Lime Street to Hazel Grove via Eccles / Ox / Picc (connections to Victoria at Newton)
- 2tph Chester to Leeds via Newton, Vic, Rochdale, Bradford Int. (connections to Castlefield at Newton)
- 2tph Liverpool Lime Street to Hull / Newcastle via Vic
- 2tph Victoria to Scarborough / Redcar
- 2tph Piccadilly to Huddersfield slow (1tph to Castleford)

Then you consider the priorities of the Northern Taskforce and they want 1tph from Stoke to Crewe, so you do a 2tph shuttle from Airport - Wilmslow - Crewe and extend 1tph to Stoke or do 2tph and let EMR finish at Stoke at peak; that's all gravy. Add 2tph Piccadilly - Alderley Edge and 2tph Piccadilly to Stoke via Macclesfield, and that's everything!

Lovely bit of mixed running, but the focus on frequency and set / single routes means you're anticipating delays not knocking on. And it optimises some routes, too.

Did I forget owt? Don't think I have...

 

[LOL The Irony]

I think a trick was missed by splitting the Blackpool and Cumbria trains. You got 2 services for the price of 1 but then some smart alex gave them both to Northern.

 

[Rhydgaled]

When I wrote to the people doing the consultation, I was trying to discuss in detail the various issues involving the various crossovers, turnbacks and rationalising.

I effectively asked:
- Can the Loco Hauled TPE services be operated jointly, aka the Scarborough and Redcar, to be a half-hourly Victoria starter using the turnback and potentially interworking as the stock would be arriving on that side of the layout.
- Can the Liverpool services be formed of a mix of 6/185 and 5/802, so as to provide your hourly 5/802 to Newcastle and hourly 6/185 to Hull. These being "fast" (aka not Staly and not Dewsbury).
- Can the local services run into Piccadilly using a mix of 3/185 and 6/185, all stops (some tweaks to calling patterns perhaps, and of course replacing the Huddersfield to Castleford shuttle by having one of those 2tph as a 3/185 TPE).

- Can the Airport service from Victoria, be a service from Stalybridge, and use either 4/150 or 6/150 to be a capacity buster. Ashton stops, and of course same side of the layout at Victoria. That opens up services towards Wigan Wallgate all coming from the Rochdale side. I would have said a 4/150 or 6/150 from Staly - Vic - Ox - Picc - Airport would be sensible.

- Can the diesel services from Warrington Central (as they will be) stopping via Flixton go to Buxton, so that you have a regular half-hourly 4/150 to Buxton? This also means all services from Warrington Central going to Stockport, because the half-hourly Liverpool / Warrington / Manchester / Stockport / Sheffield then Cleethorpes and Nottingham would be overlaid. To get the faster Cleethorpes / Nottingham trains in front of the Buxton ones, as would be needed eastbound (they'd be behind them at Oxford Road), the Buxton trains just need to stop at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel, and probably have a 2-3 minute stop at Stockport. The same applies in reverse, e.g. the Cleethorpes and Nottingham trains stop next to the Buxton - Warringtons at Stockport, and then overtake them and run ahead of them at Slade Lane. It transpires that with some 'padding' of a minimal amount you could get the moves at Castlefield and Slade Lane done beautifully.

- If you assume off-peak trains from Windermere or Barrow would go to Airport, at peak they are unsuitable as they're too short. But if you run a combined half-hourly frequency from Preston to Airport via Bolton off-peak, using a mix of NT 3/195 on Windermere / Barrow and TP 5/397 from Glasgow / Edinburgh, at peak you would still be running the 5/397 but would want something to replace the 3/195. As we now know Preston TPE will sign 5/802, can they be contracted to provide the capacity buster "other path" and therefore have a half-hourly 5 Car IC EMU from Preston to Airport via Bolton? Thus, the 5/802 can run from Windermere (!) if wanted, or Oxenholme, or just Lancaster / Preston. Or of course from Scotland. NT 3/195 from Barrow / Windermere would then dash off to Liverpool via St Helens at peak times, where the capacity isn't as heavily required, but it would give that added fast service.

- Wigan then loses fast trains, so if you assume 4tph from Wallgate to Victoria (2tph via Bolton, 2tph via Walkden), then you offer an hourly high-peak service from North Western via Eccles to Airport, and an hourly high-peak service from North Western via Walkden to Airport (providing that 3tph at the biggest stations). That would get the extra half-hourly service to Airport at peak and give destination variety. You could theoretically use 6/323 or 6/331 (or something else) for that, and even start them back at Preston or Blackpool and again give big extra capacity.

Realistically that would give you something at peak time like:
- 2tph Warrington Central to Buxton via Ox / Picc
- 2tph Liverpool Lime St to Cleethorpes / Notts via Ox / Picc
- 2tph Blackpool North to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc
- 1tph Edinburgh / Glasgow to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc
- 1tph "Somewhere" to Manchester Airport via Bolton / Ox / Picc (5/802)
- 2tph Southport to Rochdale via Bolton / Vic
- 1tph Kirkby to Blackburn via Walkden / Vic / Rochdale
- 1tph Wallgate to Leeds via Walkden / Vic / Hebden / Dewsbury
- 1tph Wigan NW to Airport via Walkden / Ox / Picc
- 1tph Wigan NW / Preston / Blackpool to Airport via Eccles / Ox / Picc (calls at Eccles for Metrolink and MediaCity)
- 2tph Stalybridge to Airport via Vic / Ox / Picc

That's 8tph from Ox and Picc to Airport, which seems perfectly good. And 6tph are Northern, 2tph are TPE fast. Higher accelerating traction types also means being able, for example, to allow the 6/331 to be the all stops; with the others doing mixed stops.

Overlaying:
- 2tph Liverpool Lime Street to Hazel Grove via Eccles / Ox / Picc (connections to Victoria at Newton)
- 2tph Chester to Leeds via Newton, Vic, Rochdale, Bradford Int. (connections to Castlefield at Newton)
- 2tph Liverpool Lime Street to Hull / Newcastle via Vic
- 2tph Victoria to Scarborough / Redcar
- 2tph Piccadilly to Huddersfield slow (1tph to Castleford)

Then you consider the priorities of the Northern Taskforce and they want 1tph from Stoke to Crewe, so you do a 2tph shuttle from Airport - Wilmslow - Crewe and extend 1tph to Stoke or do 2tph and let EMR finish at Stoke at peak; that's all gravy. Add 2tph Piccadilly - Alderley Edge and 2tph Piccadilly to Stoke via Macclesfield, and that's everything!

Lovely bit of mixed running, but the focus on frequency and set / single routes means you're anticipating delays not knocking on. And it optimises some routes, too.

Did I forget owt? Don't think I have...

Did you forget the Llandudno / North Wales to Manchester service? I may have missed it, but don't see it on your list.

 

[thecouncillor]

Did you forget the Llandudno / North Wales to Manchester service? I may have missed it, but don't see it on your list.

Assumed to be lumped in (rightly) with the Northern Chester service via Altrincham. As much as everyone hates that...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think a trick was missed by splitting the Blackpool and Cumbria trains. You got 2 services for the price of 1 but then some smart alex gave them both to Northern.

Blackpool needs long EMUs, Cumbria needs shorter DMUs, so they are no longer compatible for portion working.

Were Windermere to be wired, reverting to that could be worthy of consideration.

 

[voyagerdude220]

Were Windermere to be wired, reverting to that could be worthy of consideration.

Wouldn't platforms need to be lengthened on the Windermere branch?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't platforms need to be lengthened on the Windermere branch?

Not for portion working, as the train going there wouldn't be longer than before! You'd have 3/4 coaches to Blackpool and 3/4 to Windermere as the same train, splitting/joining at Preston.

 

[LittleAH]

When I wrote to the people doing the consultation, I was trying to discuss in detail the various issues involving the various crossovers, turnbacks and rationalising.

I effectively asked:
- Can the Loco Hauled TPE services be operated jointly, aka the Scarborough and Redcar, to be a half-hourly Victoria starter using the turnback and potentially interworking as the stock would be arriving on that side of the layout.

Theoretically yes, but there's already work going on looking at creating a west facing bay at Manchester Victoria which would scupper this almost immediately.

- Can the Liverpool services be formed of a mix of 6/185 and 5/802, so as to provide your hourly 5/802 to Newcastle and hourly 6/185 to Hull. These being "fast" (aka not Staly and not Dewsbury).

Theoretically yes, but what then picks up the contractual obligations of 2tph at intermediate stops between Stalybridge and Huddersfield? Mk5a's can't and neither 802's due to the issue of not providing guarantee of disabled access in one direction. Anyone suggesting Nothern units pick them up forget that 185s greater acceleration provide better journey time and less of a punctuality risk

Additionally, not having enough drivers sign via Guide Bridge into the main Piccadilly train shed is simply ludicrous given TRU and the amount of blockades that will be occurring over the next decade. And not having a service to the Airport, nor an easy connection. And as for TPE's rolling stock - you'll never see an 802 in Windermere...

 

[BrianW]

Not for portion working, as the train going there wouldn't be longer than before! You'd have 3/4 coaches to Blackpool and 3/4 to Windermere as the same train, splitting/joining at Preston.

Portion working. Is that what was (is?) planned for Windermere electrification? How does that work regarding crews etc? Does it mean one crew does Preston- Windermere as a 'shuttle' for instance with the other doing Manchester- Blackpool? Have plans been approved for the 'infrastructure'; awaiting the 'green light' from Mr Sunak? What effect will Castlefield have on that; or that on Castlefield? I'm picturing 12tph ew each of maximum length through Castlefield, with everything else 'diverted' or terminating short onto a 'connecting service'.

Has anyone got a kind of 'tube map' of what a 'Castlefiled Line' might look like?

Or an 'Airport Services' map?

I hadn't myself thought about the congestion issue if all the Airport had was a kind of Piccadilly shuttle only, so thank you to whoever brought that up upthread. It's not easy is it.

 

[js1000]

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

Your speculative ideas are not remotely realistic. And reorganising operators solves nothing and creates significantly more problems.

Well as someone who lives in Manchester I am fed up of every man and his dog in the north wanting a direct train to Manchester Airport. The direct TPE services that pass my local station carry air - they are not near anywhere near as busy as people like to believe - this was the situation before the pandemic too. The only reason they go to the airport is because this is simply the natural terminus for through trains going through Castlefield - not because every major town in Northern England needs a direct train link to Manchester Airport.

Network Rail are completely right, there are too many trains going through Castlefield and it is impossible to deliver a reliable timetable. Poor punctuality and reliability has a devastating impact on the "longevity" of the railway far more than if someone has to change at a station for a train that is only 10 minutes behind to get to the Airport. Part of the reason Northern Trains want pragmatic changes is because their bread and butter commuter revenue has been decimated on some stations due to poor punctuality/reliability and consequently declining passenger numbers.

 

[Killingworth]

Well as someone who lives in Manchester I am fed up of every man and his dog in the north wanting a direct train to Manchester Airport. The direct TPE services that pass my local station carry air - they are not near anywhere near as busy as people like to believe - this was the situation before the pandemic too. The only reason they go to the airport is because this is simply the natural terminus for through trains going through Castlefield - not because every major town in Northern England needs a direct train link to Manchester Airport.

Network Rail are completely right, there are too many trains going through Castlefield and it is impossible to deliver a reliable timetable. Poor punctuality and reliability has a devastating impact on the "longevity" of the railway far more than if someone has to change at a station for a train that is only 10 minutes behind to get to the Airport. Part of the reason Northern Trains want pragmatic changes is because their bread and butter commuter revenue has been decimated on some stations due to poor punctuality/reliability and consequently declining passenger numbers.

The points I was effectively making in previous posts! There is no satisfactory solution to a problem that's evolved over decades. We don't have enough platforms or tracks where they are required to run the intensity of on time services we all want.

Relaibilty of TPE South Pennine appears to have improved since it stopped going to the airport. That benefits a lot more passengers who are just going to Manchester, making other changes from Manchester, and those travelling in trains delayed when it split and reversed. Many ticket price savvy airport passengers catch Northen stopping trains from Sheffield to change at Piccadilly anyway, and did even when they were Pacers. They can cost a third or quarter of the fast prices on the same morning.

 

[js1000]

Just on the Castlefield Corridor and not wanting to side track this thread, Railfuture proposed adding a line to Carrington and reintroducing some junctions so that freight trains could bypass Manchester city centre.

https://railfuture.org.uk/display2302

Alternative proposals for Manchester congestion

An alternative proposal has been tabled to relieve congestion in Manchester’s notorious Castlefield Corridor. The short section of twin-track across the south side of the…

www.railfreight.com

Probably one of the most sensible and cost effective ideas I've ever seen. Why the DfT have not looked at this before is beyond me - removing the freight trains through Manchester is an easy win and enable another 2 passenger services through Manchester. As part of the Northern Hub study in 2010, linking Trafford Park via the WCML via Carrington rather than Castlefield was examined but never progressed.

 

[Greybeard33]

Returning to the actual MRTF Option B+ timetable proposal, this was a major topic of discussion at the TfN Board Meeting today (27 July). (The livestream of the meeting can be viewed at https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=1308&Ver=4).

During the meeting TfN received a letter from the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, in response to the letter TfN had sent to DfT after the Rail North Committee meeting of 14 July. The DfT letter effectively gave TfN a "Hobson's choice" ultimatum: TfN must agree, by 10 August 2021, to take ownership and responsibility for Option B+, in order that it could go out for public consultation in time to be implemented in the December 2022 timetable. If TfN agreement is not forthcoming, DfT will not proceed with Option B+ and the current (May 2021) Covid timetable will remain in force indefinitely, likely resulting in severe overcrowding as passenger numbers recover. The letter stressed the comparative benefits of Option B+. It said that the government intends to bring forward proposals for Manchester infrastructure enhancements "soon", but did not accept TfN's demand for a commitment to infrastructure timescales as a condition of TfN support for Option B+.

The Northern leaders on the committee variously described the tone of the Minister's letter as inflammatory, provocative and combative. Steve Rotheram, Liverpool City Region Mayor, said the government is evidently seeking to "devolve blame" for service cuts to TfN. Nevertheless the meeting agreed that the only way forward was further dialogue with government to attempt to reach consensus, and that members of the Rail North Committee should seek an urgent meeting with ministers, this week.

While the TfN Board agreed to indicate that they considered that Option B+ was the "least worst option", compared to continuation of the Covid timetable, their position remained that TfN will not formally support Option B+ unless it is linked to an agreed programme of infrastructure enhancements, with funding committed to these commencing in CP6. (Andy Burnham, GM Mayor, said that an ORR document has disclosed that the Treasury has cut Network Rail's CP6 enhancements budget by a further £500m, on top of the £1bn cut previously announced to the original £10.4bn budget. Also publication of the Enhancements Pipeline, promised for the end of July, has now been delayed until after the parliamentary summer recess.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also publication of the Enhancements Pipeline, promised for the end of July, has now been delayed until after the parliamentary summer recess.

Thanks for noting that particular matter.

 

[Ianno87]

Just on the Castlefield Corridor and not wanting to side track this thread, Railfuture proposed adding a line to Carrington and reintroducing some junctions so that freight trains could bypass Manchester city centre.

https://railfuture.org.uk/display2302

Alternative proposals for Manchester congestion

An alternative proposal has been tabled to relieve congestion in Manchester’s notorious Castlefield Corridor. The short section of twin-track across the south side of the…

www.railfreight.com

Probably one of the most sensible and cost effective ideas I've ever seen. Why the DfT have not looked at this before is beyond me - removing the freight trains through Manchester is an easy win and enable another 2 passenger services through Manchester. As part of the Northern Hub study in 2010, linking Trafford Park via the WCML via Carrington rather than Castlefield was examined but never progressed.

It just shoves the problem to Cheadle Hulme and the line via Stoke.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just shoves the problem to Cheadle Hulme and the line via Stoke.

Not ideal, but would affect less than Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

Not ideal, but would affect less than Castlefield.

No, it would affect the whole WCML by extension. What happens when the freights get to Colwich?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it would affect the whole WCML by extension. What happens when the freights get to Colwich?

If the freights were running on the WCML already, then they already have paths. It depends what you mean by "affect". Timetables and paths are not immutable, though some people seem to like to pretend they are (though I don't deny they are a lot of work, they are often worth the money). The problem in Castlefield is not that the trains are there, but the whole "if one thing is 30 seconds out the whole thing falls over" issue. The proper fix for Castlefield (other than just slashing the timetable) involves turning it into a Northern Thameslink (or Merseyrail if you prefer) with uniform rolling stock and simplified routes, with either NPR built or Victoria rebuilt to take the messier long distance stuff. You wouldn't shove freights through the Thameslink core, and nor should they be going over Castlefield either.

 

[thecouncillor]

If the freights were running on the WCML already, then they already have paths. It depends what you mean by "affect". Timetables and paths are not immutable, though some people seem to like to pretend they are (though I don't deny they are a lot of work, they are often worth the money). The problem in Castlefield is not that the trains are there, but the whole "if one thing is 30 seconds out the whole thing falls over" issue. The proper fix for Castlefield (other than just slashing the timetable) involves turning it into a Northern Thameslink (or Merseyrail if you prefer) with uniform rolling stock and simplified routes, with either NPR built or Victoria rebuilt to take the messier long distance stuff. You wouldn't shove freights through the Thameslink core, and nor should they be going over Castlefield either.

And it looks like you’d be passing Cheadle at about 15mph at best; and with the crew almost always changing in Crewe you won’t run freight via Stoke either.

It simultaneously doesn’t work trying to build chords at Warrington, as you’d only then have a two track railway to squeeze through at Weaver.

Actually, the Corridor is perfectly fine *if* you agree to a 5 minute slot in each hour, as they can be routed via Styal with limited interactions. At Wilmslow you’ve not got a huge issue either, as a large proportion of stuff via Stockport has gone in different directions.

I’ll put Carrington in the non-starter box.

 

[Dspatula]

Returning to the actual MRTF Option B+ timetable proposal, this was a major topic of discussion at the TfN Board Meeting today (27 July). (The livestream of the meeting can be viewed at https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=196&MId=1308&Ver=4).

During the meeting TfN received a letter from the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, in response to the letter TfN had sent to DfT after the Rail North Committee meeting of 14 July. The DfT letter effectively gave TfN a "Hobson's choice" ultimatum: TfN must agree, by 10 August 2021, to take ownership and responsibility for Option B+, in order that it could go out for public consultation in time to be implemented in the December 2022 timetable. If TfN agreement is not forthcoming, DfT will not proceed with Option B+ and the current (May 2021) Covid timetable will remain in force indefinitely, likely resulting in severe overcrowding as passenger numbers recover. The letter stressed the comparative benefits of Option B+. It said that the government intends to bring forward proposals for Manchester infrastructure enhancements "soon", but did not accept TfN's demand for a commitment to infrastructure timescales as a condition of TfN support for Option B+.

The Northern leaders on the committee variously described the tone of the Minister's letter as inflammatory, provocative and combative. Steve Rotheram, Liverpool City Region Mayor, said the government is evidently seeking to "devolve blame" for service cuts to TfN. Nevertheless the meeting agreed that the only way forward was further dialogue with government to attempt to reach consensus, and that members of the Rail North Committee should seek an urgent meeting with ministers, this week.

While the TfN Board agreed to indicate that they considered that Option B+ was the "least worst option", compared to continuation of the Covid timetable, their position remained that TfN will not formally support Option B+ unless it is linked to an agreed programme of infrastructure enhancements, with funding committed to these commencing in CP6. (Andy Burnham, GM Mayor, said that an ORR document has disclosed that the Treasury has cut Network Rail's CP6 enhancements budget by a further £500m, on top of the £1bn cut previously announced to the original £10.4bn budget. Also publication of the Enhancements Pipeline, promised for the end of July, has now been delayed until after the parliamentary summer recess.)

So the government's threat is they'll leave them with timetable that has more trains in it than the option they're trying to force them to pick... interesting strategy.

 

[Ianno87]

If the freights were running on the WCML already, then they already have paths. It depends what you mean by "affect". Timetables and paths are not immutable, though some people seem to like to pretend they are (though I don't deny they are a lot of work, they are often worth the money). .

Anything is timetable-able...with enough consequences and trade-offs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the government's threat is they'll leave them with timetable that has more trains in it than the option they're trying to force them to pick... interesting strategy.

Yes, that's utterly bizarre and indeed quite antagonistic. Surely something more like "agree or you'll get Option C" would be a better way to go, that one being the one that will enhance punctuality the most.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, that's utterly bizarre and indeed quite antagonistic. Surely something more like "agree or you'll get Option C" would be a better way to go, that one being the one that will enhance punctuality the most.

Do that and the northern Stakeholders will just cry that "Whitehall" is making the decisions for them.

Threatening "Do Nothing" very clearly puts the ball in the north's court. It's then for the north to try and not hit the net on the return.

 

[Dspatula]

Yes, that's utterly bizarre and indeed quite antagonistic. Surely something more like "agree or you'll get Option C" would be a better way to go, that one being the one that will enhance punctuality the most.

Option C isn't workable though. I suppose the reality is that its option B+ is going to happen whatever and its more about who ends with the blame hot potato when it does happen.

 

[domcoop7]

Do that and the northern Stakeholders will just cry that "Whitehall" is making the decisions for them.

Threatening "Do Nothing" very clearly puts the ball in the north's court. It's then for the north to try and not hit the net on the return

Without veering too much into party politics, we saw the same thing with Coronavirus back last Autumn with Andy Burnham (and also Steve Rotheram, but the media weren't interested, so most people don't know he did it too) doing grandstanding speeches about how they aren't being given enough money. In the end both sides, central government and the metro mayors knew what was going to happen one way or the other. They each just wanted to have the last word so the blame could be placed on the other party. Burnham in particular is being touted as future Labour leader, and public battles with the government raise his profile nationally, which he otherwise can't do being a local politician. So there is no surprise whatsoever at this outcome. And there'll also be no surprise when option B+ is chosen (just as there was no surprise when Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region went into Tier 3 last year). Each side is just vying for the other to be set up to take the blame.

If the freights were running on the WCML already, then they already have paths. It depends what you mean by "affect". Timetables and paths are not immutable, though some people seem to like to pretend they are (though I don't deny they are a lot of work, they are often worth the money). The problem in Castlefield is not that the trains are there, but the whole "if one thing is 30 seconds out the whole thing falls over" issue. The proper fix for Castlefield (other than just slashing the timetable) involves turning it into a Northern Thameslink (or Merseyrail if you prefer) with uniform rolling stock and simplified routes, with either NPR built or Victoria rebuilt to take the messier long distance stuff. You wouldn't shove freights through the Thameslink core, and nor should they be going over Castlefield either.

Yes and no. My first thought is dig up the Windsor Link and knock down Ordsall chord. (Not really, but you get my idea).

But this "Thameslink for Manchester", still would have freight and still has the Cheshire Lines Committee over it. And you would lose any potential long distance from North to South through Manchester (I don't think there is that much now anyway, but back in the day there used to be loco-hauled Cross Country from Scotland to Birmingham and we shouldn't lose the possibility of that if it becomes feasible again in a post HS2 world, maybe? I'm not so sure, but closing routes doesn't usually end well).

Victoria is a large, well-located station. I think I said already on this or a speculative thread, there is space for bays at the Western side, to make a new "Exchange" station for Victoria terminators, and for a lot less than four tracking Castlefield (which I really can't see achieves anything useful other than dwell times, since the same bottlenecks still exist at either end) you could extend the Eastern bay platforms at Victoria and make Oxford Road platform 1 fully usuable with turnback provision. You then use the various bays for the various local services (Oxford Road, Picadilly and Victoria all within reasonable distance for day-trippers, shoppers, etc.) and the through trains can use Victoria or Castlefield as appropriate. Ordsall Curve could be used as an art installation. Perhaps pin £20 notes to the bridge and call it modern art (in the mould of KLF in 1990s). And if some town no longer have a direct train to Manchester Airport (mostly off-peak, daytimes and evenings only, different timetable on Weekends, which is hardly conducive for use to catch a plane), then so be it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Neither Manchester Piccadilly nor Manchester Victoria railways stations have any number of comparable through platforms as found at Leeds railway station, which also has a greater number of bay platforms.

 

[domcoop7]

Neither Manchester Piccadilly nor Manchester Victoria railways stations have any number of comparable through platforms as found at Leeds railway station, which also has a greater number of bay platforms.

Leeds has six through platforms I think?, and an avoiding through line. Victoria has four and Piccadilly has two, which makes six (but without an avoiding line). As for bays, we could have two at Victoria West, two Victoria East, two at Oxford Road (using Platform 1) and of course the main shed at Piccadilly has 12. Yes this would take investment, but considerably less than building tunnels and / or widening the viaduct* and / or building a 20km freight line for Trafford park going in the wrong direction.

*unless they were going to happen anyway for NPR, but even so that's what 15 - 20 years away?