Salford Crescent extra platform, was it the right choice?

[Bletchleyite]

Watching the development of the extra platform at Salford Crescent I can't help but wonder if it was the right choice. It's unusual for a rail development to significantly reduce the utility of a station, but this does - in the Manchester-bound direction it means interchange is over a high bridge between Vic and Picc services rather than same-platform.

It doesn't look like there's room for two islands which would be the ideal (one westbound and one eastbound with suitable flyovers for cross platform interchange between Vic and Castlefield services), so would we have been better off overall, at the cost of a slight reduction in flexibility of operations, widening the existing island and dropping from three to two tracks, retaining the same platform interchange and allowing better shelters to be in place on the platforms? After all the main problem with the present station appears to be the island being extremely narrow (similar to Liverpool Central) rather than capacity for train movements.

I'm pretty convinced we would given the desire to simplify patterns and increase interchange between Castlefield and Vic routes (e.g. all Southports to Vic).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Watching the development of the extra platform at Salford Crescent I can't help but wonder if it was the right choice. It's unusual for a rail development to significantly reduce the utility of a station, but this does - in the Manchester-bound direction it means interchange is over a high bridge between Vic and Picc services rather than same-platform.

It doesn't look like there's room for two islands which would be the ideal (one westbound and one eastbound with suitable flyovers for cross platform interchange between Vic and Castlefield services), so would we have been better off overall, at the cost of a slight reduction in flexibility of operations, widening the existing island and dropping from three to two tracks, retaining the same platform interchange and allowing better shelters to be in place on the platforms? After all the main problem with the present station appears to be the island being extremely narrow (similar to Liverpool Central) rather than capacity for train movements.

I'm pretty convinced we would given the desire to simplify patterns and increase interchange between Castlefield and Vic routes (e.g. all Southports to Vic).

While I'll admit it's a tremendous cost for merely a failsafe, even continuing to have all services allocated to the current island platform and having the new platform there simply to get trains out of the way would be hugely beneficial. It can become a real bottleneck there with trains queuing from the south to get in. It'll be great to have an alternative track to send some down.

 

[zwk500]

Watching the development of the extra platform at Salford Crescent I can't help but wonder if it was the right choice. It's unusual for a rail development to significantly reduce the utility of a station, but this does - in the Manchester-bound direction it means interchange is over a high bridge between Vic and Picc services rather than same-platform.

How many people are interchanging between Vic and Oxford Road/Picc trains at Salford Crescent? Or are people waiting at their origin for an appropriate train, or carrying on to central Manchester and using Shank's Pony or Metrolink to get across/into central Manchester?
If more people are staying on the trains than changing at Salford Crescent, then allowing trains to flow more smoothly is more beneficial than the interchange facility.

But I don't know travel patterns in this area at all - the interchange could be far more significant than through traffic.

It doesn't look like there's room for two islands which would be the ideal (one westbound and one eastbound with suitable flyovers for cross platform interchange between Vic and Castlefield services),

There's not room for the flyovers either.

so would we have been better off overall, at the cost of a slight reduction in flexibility of operations, widening the existing island and dropping from three to two tracks, retaining the same platform interchange and allowing better shelters to be in place on the platforms? After all the main problem with the present station appears to be the island being extremely narrow (similar to Liverpool Central) rather than capacity for train movements.

I'm pretty convinced we would given the desire to simplify patterns and increase interchange between Castlefield and Vic routes (e.g. all Southports to Vic).

The preferred option in Britain nowadays is always to do nothing at all until it's absolutely necessary. I don't think they'd have committed to the expenditure of new platforms without a good case they were required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people are interchanging between Vic and Oxford Road/Picc trains at Salford Crescent? Or are people waiting at their origin for an appropriate train, or carrying on to central Manchester and using Shank's Pony or Metrolink to get across/into central Manchester?
If more people are staying on the trains than changing at Salford Crescent, then allowing trains to flow more smoothly is more beneficial than the interchange facility.

I think the question is how many COULD BE changing there rather than how many ARE changing there. The provision of quality interchange between Vic and Castlefield services is a clear prerequisite of moving away from "direct hourly trains from everywhere to everywhere", and what has been done has degraded, not improved, such interchange.

 

[zwk500]

I think the question is how many COULD BE changing there rather than how many ARE changing there.

OK but,...

The provision of quality interchange between Vic and Castlefield services is a clear prerequisite of moving away from "direct hourly trains from everywhere to everywhere", and what has been done has degraded, not improved, such interchange.

You've not answered either question here. You've just restated your view that if we changed service patterns this change would have made half the interchanges harder.

 

[The Planner]

While I'll admit it's a tremendous cost for merely a failsafe, even continuing to have all services allocated to the current island platform and having the new platform there simply to get trains out of the way would be hugely beneficial. It can become a real bottleneck there with trains queuing from the south to get in. It'll be great to have an alternative track to send some down.

Its still a conflict with any train going south though from the station or from Walkden as its a single lead from P1 and 3 towards Picc and Vic.

 

[The Pelican]

I think lots of potential capacity or frequency improvements lead to slightly worse interchanges or more difficult journies. Clapham Junction, for example, has relatively few useful cross platform interchanges because it's laid out as three seperate four platform stations- From the East Croydon fast direction to the Wimbledon Slows is useful, but only in one direction.

A maximally convenient Manchester rail network might run absolutely everything into Picadilly somehow, via the Windsor Link, Ordsall Chord or Phillips Park line, but it would be hard to combine that with a very frequent or very reliable service. The main thing is to make sure that there's good information for which platform trains will come in on- either a permenant geograpical assignment like at Clapham or at least a board which announces the platform reliably and in advance!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I interchange at Salford Crescent, travelling from the south, changing at Manchester Piccadilly, then Salford Crescent, then either onwards to Blackburn or doubling back through Victoria towards Todmorden. It is easier but slower than schlepping across Manchester on foot, much more reliable and generally quicker than the free bus, finally slower but free compared to using Metrolink.

My concern, as mentioned by @The Pelican, is any uncertainty as to which service will use which platform. Especially if that is changed at the last minute as the train approaches the station. At present it is a simple island, although I did once nearly get caught out by a Blackburn service sneaking into the wrong platform behind me! Much easier than changing between islands at Bolton though with the 10-mile hike to where the trains actually stop nowhere near the footbridge.

If only there were a direct rail connection between Piccadilly and Victoria, but that would probably cost many tens millions (sarcasm alert).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only there were a direct rail connection between Piccadilly and Victoria, but that would probably cost many tens millions (sarcasm alert).

There are two. Metrolink and the Ordsall Chord.

 

[jonnyfan]

To me, the logical platforming of services would be the ones to Oxford Road and the Airport use the existing platform, allowing same platform interchange from the Atherton line. Services heading towards Victoria from the Bolton line would use the new platform, passengers for services towards Oxford Road and the Airport are able to use Bolton for same platform transfer.

 

[Paul AC]

There are two. Metrolink and the Ordsall Chord.

Ordsall (or, Sodall, as in sod all use) Chord only sees one train per hour each way, so moderately useless for general cross-city connections.

Metrolink isn't free to most ticket holders. It ought to be, but I don't see why I should subsidise passengers from around the country to use it when I am paying for it in my Greater Manchester taxes. Perhaps GBR can fund it, maybe with some arrangement similar to the + cross-London ticketing.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There are two. Metrolink and the Ordsall Chord.

You miss the 'sarcasm alert'. £85m (Wikipedia figure) for one train an hour on the Ordsall Curve. Excellent value, or perhaps not. The Metrolink is indeed direct and all under-cover for protection from the famous Manchester sunshine but (outside Greater Manchester fares) costs extra.

 

[Killingworth]

You miss the 'sarcasm alert'. £85m (Wikipedia figure) for one train an hour on the Ordsall Curve. Excellent value, or perhaps not. The Metrolink is indeed direct and all under-cover for protection from the famous Manchester sunshine but (outside Greater Manchester fares) costs extra.

Sarcasm was noted and is reciprocated from here in Sheffield. It cost £140m (but probably a lot more) and over 25 years of planning for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme to create a 3rd fast path between Manchester and Sheffield, another part of the Manchester/Northern Hub. It hasn't added a single path 2 years after completion!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Sarcasm was noted and is reciprocated from here in Sheffield. It cost £140m (but probably a lot more) and over 25 years of planning for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme to create a 3rd fast path between Manchester and Sheffield, another part of the Manchester/Northern Hub. It hasn't added a single path 2 years after completion!

Not to mention Loughor Viaduct and Norton Bridge bypass. Reliability may have improved in terms of the Hope Valley and my latter two examples though.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

How many people are interchanging between Vic and Oxford Road/Picc trains at Salford Crescent?

A lot, even when I just want the city centre I usually change there for Deansgate or Piccadilly, and I'm far from the only one getting off there.

Or are people waiting at their origin for an appropriate train,

Only the Southport line has the choice of Castlefield or Victoria everywhere else only gets 1 route.

 

[rishtonlad]

If coming from Blackburn i am tending to be going towards Oxford Road and tend to change at Salford Crescent.

 

[L+Y]

Tend to agree with the comments re Salford Crescent, which I've used to interchange between Pic and Vic-bound services before: both coming from the Southport line and from the WCML. In some cases the situation can be somewhat alleviated by swapping the connection to Bolton, but a desire to ramp up use of the Atherton line for Southport services makes that problematic too!

As ever I'd emphasise Southport line isn't just Southport and the West Lancs stations: it's Wigan too which also has very substandard connections to the Oxford Road corridor, as a Greater Manchester town!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

it's Wigan too which also has very substandard connections to the Oxford Road corridor, as a Greater Manchester town!

The Southport -> Stalybridge connects onto the Cumbria -> Airport at Bolton (with an 11 min change, but runs fast from Bolton to Deansgate instead of stopping, and is only 4 mins behind by Salford Crescent).
Obviously that only works once an hour, but the other half hour there's a direct service to Oxford Road.
I don't think that's "very substandard".


Alternatively it's a 10 minute change at Salford Crescent (from an Atherton line train).

 

[cle]

If it ever enables an increase in frequency or new services which weren't possible before, it was worth it. Agree it's a little jarring, but larger stations are less convenient - Cambridge South should be two islands, etc... always reasons why. And if it's a microcosm version of Picc p13/14 (!), best practice would be to split it up a bit. I bet even p15 as a side would be welcome.

 

[Trackman]

I don't see the sense in it, Bolton corridor is near enough chocka, and I don't think the Up Bolton (P3) connects to the Atherton line, P3 is only Bi-Di (MC 509) because of the shunt move to P2 unless something has changed.
It's not at Man Picc P13/14 overcrowding proportions at the moment but is an important interchange for commuters, I've seen it busy at peak times but not overcrowded, unless something goes pear shaped, but that's for every station like this.
AFAIK there is some padding at 'Crescent due to going into the clogged up rail artery that is Manchester.
I wonder what the future timetables plans are?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

and I don't think the Up Bolton (P3) connects to the Atherton line, P3 is only Bi-Di (MC 509) because of the shunt move to P2 unless something has changed.

In terms of Manchester routes, all tracks can be used to/from either, for Bolton and Atherton:

The Up Bolton (P3) can only be arrived in from Bolton.
The Up and Down Bolton (P1) can be used in either direction to/from Bolton, but only from Atherton.
The Down Bolton (P2) can be used in either direction to/from Atherton, but only to Bolton.

 

[zwk500]

I don't see the sense in it, Bolton corridor is near enough chocka, and I don't think the Up Bolton (P3) connects to the Atherton line, P3 is only Bi-Di (MC 509) because of the shunt move to P2 unless something has changed.

If the layout remains unchanged, this new platform will allow the following improvements:
- A train from Atherton can use P1 while a train from Bolton is in P3.
- Trains from Bolton have the option of a 2nd platform
- Man Vic or Man Picc have the option of a 2nd platform without blocking trains from Bolton
- A train from Man Vic to Bolton can arrive in P1 while a train in Man Picc arrives in P2 (subject to overlap restrictions), without blocking an Up Bolton train.
- Trains from Manchester have an additional platform to reverse in.
- Trains from Manchester can reverse in P3 while all other trains can still pass.
- Trains from Bolton can reverse in P1 while an up bolton and any down train still pass.

These may seem quite small but collectively they give an appreciable amount more breathing room. Some of the functionality is more helpful during delays than planning, but it will be interesting to see what the timetable changes planned are.
It could be even more useful if the layout were tweaked to allow Up Atherton trains into P3, parallel departures from P3 to Vic and p1 to Picc, and parallel arrivals from Picc to P2, Vic to P1, and a departure to Vic from P3. but I expect that remodel is quite a long way off, especially given the geometry of the location.

 

[markymark2000]

It could be even more useful if the layout were tweaked to allow Up Atherton trains into P3, parallel departures from P3 to Vic and p1 to Picc, and parallel arrivals from Picc to P2, Vic to P1, and a departure to Vic from P3. but I expect that remodel is quite a long way off, especially given the geometry of the location.

The issue that you have got is that all of the trains from the Atherton lines run to Victoria and most of the ones on the Bolton lines run to Piccadilly and so you are unlikely to see many (if any) parallel departures. there will always be a conflict which will hinder things quite a lot. Whether that conflict is north or south of the station. Of course you could resolve that with a recast of the timetables but that would likely upset a lot of people, or you'd have to grade separate (and I don't think that would be possible in this area)

 

[zwk500]

The issue that you have got is that all of the trains from the Atherton lines run to Victoria and most of the ones on the Bolton lines run to Piccadilly and so you are unlikely to see many (if any) parallel departures. there will always be a conflict which will hinder things quite a lot. Whether that conflict is north or south of the station.

Moving the conflict to after the station call allows the trains to at least be brought into the platform first before managing the conflict though, which is better for passengers.

Of course you could resolve that with a recast of the timetables but that would likely upset a lot of people, or you'd have to grade separate (and I don't think that would be possible in this area)

Grade-separation is a non-starter in that area with the local roads and need to accommodate freight trains, I fear.

 

[Paul AC]

It's quite common now for the Stalybridge - Southport to run into platform 1 while the usually-a-bit-late Manchester Airport - Blackpool North runs into platform 2 and then departs first (the Southport calls intermediately en route to Bolton). That move into platform 1 blocks the bypass Line/platform 3 route into Man Vic though.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Grade-separation is a non-starter in that area with the local roads and need to accommodate freight trains, I fear.

Yes I doubt it would be easy.
unless you want underground platforms (e.g. sending the Atherton line into a tunnel) but that's a whole different discussion.

 

[markymark2000]

Moving the conflict to after the station call allows the trains to at least be brought into the platform first before managing the conflict though, which is better for passengers.

I largely agree but if you are moving the conflict to after the station call, you will struggle to get parallel departures which you are hoping a remodel would enable, especially taking into account the current routings.

It's quite common now for the Stalybridge - Southport to run into platform 1 while the usually-a-bit-late Manchester Airport - Blackpool North runs into platform 2 and then departs first (the Southport calls intermediately en route to Bolton). That move into platform 1 blocks the bypass Line/platform 3 route into Man Vic though.

How will the signal overlaps work at Platform 3 though? Could a train from Bolton be routed into platform 3 while the Blackpool North train is routed into platform 1? If that is a permitted thing, at least when such a movement is happening, a train being sent into platform 3 has an extra green signal further up the line and doesn't have to sit outside the station waiting for a platform or anything.

 

[zwk500]

I largely agree but if you are moving the conflict to after the station call, you will struggle to get parallel departures which you are hoping a remodel would enable, especially taking into account the current routings.

Parallel departures would be a nice optimisation, sequential departures is still an improvement on the current situation.

How will the signal overlaps work at Platform 3 though? Could a train from Bolton be routed into platform 3 while the Blackpool North train is routed into platform 2? If that is a permitted thing, at least when such a movement is happening, a train being sent into platform 3 has an extra green signal further up the line and doesn't have to sit outside the station waiting for a platform or anything.

According to the 5 Mile Diagrams, at the north end MP505 (P2) and MP507 (P1) share a regular overlap beyond the junction points towards Bolton, but MP507 shows a short overlap that doesn't lock the junction. MP505 doesn't have overlaps towards Atherton shown in the diagrams, because of how they're drawn.
At the south end, MP506 (P1) and MP508 (P3) Share a long overlap foul of the junction towards Stalybridge (the Overlap towards Deansgate isn't shown clearly either), but each has short overlaps clear of all pointwork.

This means that the the Bolton-Manchester train could be routed in to P3 using restricted aspects while the Stalybridge- Blackpool Southport train is routed across the junction. So it wouldn't get an extra green signal, but the Red signal protecting the platform would clear on approach so that it's not standing outside the station waiting for the platform to clear.

 

[Paul AC]

I'm confused by the posts from both @markymark2000 and @zwk500 . I think @markymark2000 might be confused by the platform numbers (west to east 2 - 1 - 3) and @zwk500 has invented a non-existent Stalybridge-Blackpool train!

 

[zwk500]

I'm confused by the posts from both @markymark2000 and @zwk500 . I think @markymark2000 might be confused by the platform numbers (west to east 2 - 1 - 3) and @zwk500 has invented a non-existent Stalybridge-Blackpool train!

Apologies, now edited.

The condensed answer is that the train from the Bolton line can be brought into Platform 3 (albeit on restricted aspects) while a train from Manchester Victoria is routed into Platform 1 (which requires crossing over briefly) and a train is signalled from Manchester Piccadilly into platform 2 as a completely parallel move.
This will allow the train from the Bolton direction to make it's station call while the train from Manchester Victoria is crossing in front of it, or making it's own station call. It would no longer need to wait for the slower train to depart before accessing a platform.