Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[daodao]

Why is there a need for both of these to be a stopper and what happens to the Preston one too? Also how do these proposals now fit in with everything at the other end at Euxton junction?

These trains (2 tph) would comprise the entirety of the Manchester-Blackpool service. There should also be 1 tph WCML main line service from Scotland calling at Lancaster/Preston/Bolton and terminating at Victoria. These would be the only regular trains via Chorley.

 

[daodao]

I'd agree with this, but add:
- Terminate Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service at Piccadilly to remove conflicts in the station throat or at Slade Lane Jn between Stockport and Airport routes
- Remove the Preston to Manchester Victoria all stations service which takes 55 mins and has 5 mins turnaround at either end, and routinely has days where the entire service runs with delays. Compromise with additional calls in one of the other 2tph from Blackpool and divert the 1tph Blackpool to Hazel Grove service to the Airport; the two above leave the only conflicting move at Slade Lane the hourly EMR service.
- Run services from Barrow and Windermere no further South than Lancaster or Oxenholme respectively with connections into TPE Scottish services which are faster anyway

That way you'd have about 11tph through the Castlefield corridor including a freight path which would run via Styal/Heald Green and no more than 8tph between Manchester and the Airport which ought to work robustly off the four platforms.

Broadly sensible suggestions.

 

[daodao]

I feel that the only way to reduce congestion along the Castlefield corridor at this moment in time is for every town and city on the east side of the Pennines not to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Teesside, Leeds/Bradford, Humberside/East Riding of Yorkshire all have their own airports, which could be better developed.

I am puzzled as to how towns and cities on the east side of the Pennines must have direct trains to Manchester Airport, unless there are hordes of people that jet off to St Moritz or Juan le Pain everyday. It would be like me jetting off to Sydney to do my weekly shop when I already have a Tesco Extra, Lidl, and Home Bargains a mere five minute walk across the road from me.

I agree.

 

[furnessvale]

I feel that the only way to reduce congestion along the Castlefield corridor at this moment in time is for every town and city on the east side of the Pennines not to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Teesside, Leeds/Bradford, Humberside/East Riding of Yorkshire all have their own airports, which could be better developed.

I am puzzled as to how towns and cities on the east side of the Pennines must have direct trains to Manchester Airport, unless there are hordes of people that jet off to St Moritz or Juan le Pain everyday. It would be like me jetting off to Sydney to do my weekly shop when I already have a Tesco Extra, Lidl, and Home Bargains a mere five minute walk across the road from me.

In which case, people will continue to travel to the airport by road, either car or coach. Railways are in no position to dictate the preferred flight options of intending air passengers.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd agree with this, but add:
- Terminate Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service at Piccadilly to remove conflicts in the station throat or at Slade Lane Jn between Stockport and Airport routes
- Remove the Preston to Manchester Victoria all stations service which takes 55 mins and has 5 mins turnaround at either end, and routinely has days where the entire service runs with delays. Compromise with additional calls in one of the other 2tph from Blackpool and divert the 1tph Blackpool to Hazel Grove service to the Airport; the two above leave the only conflicting move at Slade Lane the hourly EMR service.
- Run services from Barrow and Windermere no further South than Lancaster or Oxenholme respectively with connections into TPE Scottish services which are faster anyway

That way you'd have about 11tph through the Castlefield corridor including a freight path which would run via Styal/Heald Green and no more than 8tph between Manchester and the Airport which ought to work robustly off the four platforms.

Conflicts between Piccadilly East Junction and Slade Lane are not the main cause of congestion in the corridor. In any case they cannot be eliminated by routing all Airport line trains into the corridor.

There are only 4 running lines between Piccadilly and Slade Lane and the 15tph to Stockport cannot all fit on the Fast lines - some must share the Slows with the Airport line trains. At Slade Lane the Stockport lines change from paired by use to paired by direction, so conflicts are inevitable as services in opposite directions cross each others' paths.

For example, if the Cleethorpes services terminated at Piccadilly they would still have to use Platforms 9 and 10, as now, because no other suitable platforms are available. They would still need to run on the Slows to/from Slade Lane and so potentially conflict with Airport services.

I agree with your suggestions to cull the Liverpool to Crewe and Cumbria to Airport services from the corridor, which I suggested myself in post #35.

 

[Ianno87]

Railways are in no position to dictate the preferred flight options of intending air passengers.

Yes they are, up to a point. Connectivity to Manchester Airport, focused on it acting as a Hub airport for the whole North of England, is hugely important for the north's economy and acting as a comparable economic entity to London & the South East.

 

[43074]

Conflicts between Piccadilly East Junction and Slade Lane are not the main cause of congestion in the corridor. In any case they cannot be eliminated by routing all Airport line trains into the corridor.

There are only 4 running lines between Piccadilly and Slade Lane and the 15tph to Stockport cannot all fit on the Fast lines - some must share the Slows with the Airport line trains. At Slade Lane the Stockport lines change from paired by use to paired by direction, so conflicts are inevitable as services in opposite directions cross each others' paths.

For example, if the Cleethorpes services terminated at Piccadilly they would still have to use Platforms 9 and 10, as now, because no other suitable platforms are available. They would still need to run on the Slows to/from Slade Lane and so potentially conflict with Airport services.

I agree with your suggestions to cull the Liverpool to Crewe and Cumbria to Airport services from the corridor, which I suggested myself in post #35.

Presumably though there are only conflicts at Slade Lane if trains go from the Stockport direction to the Slow lines, otherwise it's four tracks merging into two and no stations etc between there and Piccadilly. Removing as many conflicting moves as possible there should help improve performance across the wider area. It's the same reason I suggested removing the Preston to Victoria stopping service, that is a consistently bad performer and with the 3 other trains per hour from the Chorley route going through to the Castlefield corridor getting trains to arrive at Salford Crescent on time is half of the battle in holding the rest of the timetable together.

 

[Greybeard33]

Presumably though there are only conflicts at Slade Lane if trains go from the Stockport direction to the Slow lines, otherwise it's four tracks merging into two and no stations etc between there and Piccadilly. Removing as many conflicting moves as possible there should help improve performance across the wider area. It's the same reason I suggested removing the Preston to Victoria stopping service, that is a consistently bad performer and with the 3 other trains per hour from the Chorley route going through to the Castlefield corridor getting trains to arrive at Salford Crescent on time is half of the battle in holding the rest of the timetable together.

Stockport-bound trains on the Up Slow have to cross the Down Fast at Slade Lane and then either merge onto the Up Fast or cross that too to remain on the Up Slow.

This issue affects the services to Norwich, Cleethorpes, Alderley Edge and Hazel Grove, as well as any services starting from Platforms 11 or 12. However, it is possible to make the crossing move to the Up Fast at the throat or at Ardwick instead, if a gap in the traffic permits. This gives the signallers some flexibility and I think it is unusual for a queue to develop back to Platform 13.

 

[mmh]

Yes they are, up to a point. Connectivity to Manchester Airport, focused on it acting as a Hub airport for the whole North of England, is hugely important for the north's economy and acting as a comparable economic entity to London & the South East.

I think the point is rather that the airline passengers are going to the airport regardless of whether the railway will take them there or not. If it won't, they'll go by car. Few journeys just won't happen.

 

[furnessvale]

I think the point is rather that the airline passengers are going to the airport regardless of whether the railway will take them there or not. If it won't, they'll go by car. Few journeys just won't happen.

Exactly.

 

[Ianno87]

I think the point is rather that the airline passengers are going to the airport regardless of whether the railway will take them there or not. If it won't, they'll go by car. Few journeys just won't happen.

Exactly.

There is a difference between the practical realities of what passengers actually do and the wider global perception of whether Manchester airport is simply a regional airport, or the 'Heathrow of the north'.

 

[Killingworth]

I feel that the only way to reduce congestion along the Castlefield corridor at this moment in time is for every town and city on the east side of the Pennines not to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Teesside, Leeds/Bradford, Humberside/East Riding of Yorkshire all have their own airports, which could be better developed.

I am puzzled as to how towns and cities on the east side of the Pennines must have direct trains to Manchester Airport, unless there are hordes of people that jet off to St Moritz or Juan le Pain everyday. It would be like me jetting off to Sydney to do my weekly shop when I already have a Tesco Extra, Lidl, and Home Bargains a mere five minute walk across the road from me.

That's an ideal subject for a separate thread, but surely the same applies even more emphatically to Edinburgh and Glasgow?

 

[mmh]

There is a difference between the practical realities of what passengers actually do and the wider global perception of whether Manchester airport is simply a regional airport, or the 'Heathrow of the north'.

Nobody other than politicians and people who run airports think in such terms. To everyone else an airport is either where they want to go or not, and an airline will either take them to or via it, or not.

Manchester Airport is large because as well as serving the large urban area around it, it's effectively the local airport for nigh on half the country. Its catchment area is enormous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case, people will continue to travel to the airport by road, either car or coach. Railways are in no position to dictate the preferred flight options of intending air passengers.

This would be acceptable collateral damage given the relative demand for the Airport and Manchester city centre.

 

[Ploughman]

I feel that the only way to reduce congestion along the Castlefield corridor at this moment in time is for every town and city on the east side of the Pennines not to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Teesside, Leeds/Bradford, Humberside/East Riding of Yorkshire all have their own airports, which could be better developed.

I am puzzled as to how towns and cities on the east side of the Pennines must have direct trains to Manchester Airport, unless there are hordes of people that jet off to St Moritz or Juan le Pain everyday. It would be like me jetting off to Sydney to do my weekly shop when I already have a Tesco Extra, Lidl, and Home Bargains a mere five minute walk across the road from me.

Most of the destinations served are, to me Short haul flights and not long haul as served by Manchester.
If Leeds Bradford or Doncaster offered trans atlantic then more people might opt for those airports.
Until then we are stuck with what he have.

 

[Gareth]

Manchester Airport is not Heathrow
Manchester isn't London
The North isn't the South East

 

[158756]

These trains (2 tph) would comprise the entirety of the Manchester-Blackpool service. There should also be 1 tph WCML main line service from Scotland calling at Lancaster/Preston/Bolton and terminating at Victoria. These would be the only regular trains via Chorley.

I'm not really sure why this route is targeted for cuts. Having gone to the expense of electrification, there would now be fewer trains than the all-diesel no-growth franchise? Chorley has already seen services reduced since the electrification programme began with the loss of the Scottish service.

Terminating a long distance electric service at Victoria would probably be even less reliable than anything else going on in Manchester because there's no platforms for a decent layover.

 

[daodao]

I'm not really sure why this route is targeted for cuts. Having gone to the expense of electrification, there would now be fewer trains than the all-diesel no-growth franchise? Chorley has already seen services reduced since the electrification programme began with the loss of the Scottish service.

There is insufficient capacity at central Manchester stations to handle the number of trains currently scheduled AND to provide a reliable service. 2 tph is quite reasonable for a medium-sized town outside a major conurbation.

Terminating a long distance electric service at Victoria would probably be even less reliable than anything else going on in Manchester because there's no platforms for a decent layover.

The train should layover in a siding just east of Victoria; if one doesn't exist already, surely there is space to build one.​

 

[158756]

There is insufficient capacity at central Manchester stations to handle the number of trains currently scheduled AND to provide a reliable service. 2 tph is quite reasonable for a medium-sized town outside a major conurbation.

The train should layover in a siding just east of Victoria; if one doesn't exist already, surely there is space to build one.​

There clearly was space for the service via Chorley until recently. So electrification has driven away passengers, messed around with the TPE service, and now the local service is on the chopping block. Sounds like a brilliant argument never to electrify a single mile more.

A siding East of Victoria doesn't currently exist unless you go to Newton Heath, which isn't very convenient. Northern's Kirkby service sits at Brewery Junction, I don't know how well that would work for another service. Both those options are currently unelectrified. Immediately outside Victoria you can't do anything on the southern side of the line because of Metrolink. Perhaps the viaduct could be widened on the north side?

 

[randyrippley]

......................... Perhaps the viaduct could be widened on the north side?

Google Earth shows waste land including a reycling centre beetween the railway and Dalton St. Not sure if you can extend far enough east, looks like Urban Splash have been busy there and would probably object to losing their car park (which probably was railway land once)
Google map view
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4919883,-2.2287927,233m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[vidal]

A siding East of Victoria doesn't currently exist unless you go to Newton Heath, which isn't very convenient. Northern's Kirkby service sits at Brewery Junction, I don't know how well that would work for another service. Both those options are currently unelectrified. Immediately outside Victoria you can't do anything on the southern side of the line because of Metrolink. Perhaps the viaduct could be widened on the north side?

What's the state of play with the former Red Bank sidings? How difficult would it be to lay a few hundred metres of track (and the associated signalling) in order that there is some capacity to store units rather than have them clogging up the through platforms?

James

 

[Clip]

There is insufficient capacity at central Manchester stations to handle the number of trains currently scheduled AND to provide a reliable service. 2 tph is quite reasonable for a medium-sized town outside a major conurbation.

Still making the mistake of thinking everyone is going to Manchester. You may have forgotten about Preston for connections to Scotland and London - which have some great advances if you take the long way round - the trains in the peaks are well used

Or Leyland for connection into Liverpool too.

Whilst the figures for both stations seem low - thats because of the furore of the timetable stuff but they are building more and more house in both towns so those figures will only go up and then 2 tp becomes very uncomfortable

 

[Ianno87]

There clearly was space for the service via Chorley until recently. So electrification has driven away passengers, messed around with the TPE service, and now the local service is on the chopping block. Sounds like a brilliant argument never to electrify a single mile more.

A siding East of Victoria doesn't currently exist unless you go to Newton Heath, which isn't very convenient. Northern's Kirkby service sits at Brewery Junction, I don't know how well that would work for another service. Both those options are currently unelectrified. Immediately outside Victoria you can't do anything on the southern side of the line because of Metrolink. Perhaps the viaduct could be widened on the north side?

It might have made more sense if wires had gone to Stalybridge as per the original plan and avoid the need to reverse EMUs at Vic.

Trying to use Victoria as a through and terminal station simultaneously does nobody any favours.

 

[Greybeard33]

Remove the Preston to Manchester Victoria all stations service which takes 55 mins and has 5 mins turnaround at either end, and routinely has days where the entire service runs with delays.

There is insufficient capacity at central Manchester stations to handle the number of trains currently scheduled AND to provide a reliable service. 2 tph is quite reasonable for a medium-sized town outside a major conurbation.

There clearly was space for the service via Chorley until recently. So electrification has driven away passengers, messed around with the TPE service, and now the local service is on the chopping block. Sounds like a brilliant argument never to electrify a single mile more.

Where is the evidence that the Preston - Victoria stopper is contributing to delays in the Castlefield corridor? So far today, all its services in both directions have arrived RT, so clearly the turnaround is adequate when it is not delayed by other late running trains. Removal of this service would, at a stroke, negate the capacity gain of strengthening the two Blackpool services from 4-car to 6-car, on the most overcrowded commuter line into Manchester.

I think this suggestion is really driven by the agenda of those posters who are determined that all TPE services must be evicted from the Airport.

 

[Glenn1969]

But today is not a good guide given that many commuters are still on holiday. Think you could check again on Monday when people have gone back to work

 

[Greybeard33]

What's the state of play with the former Red Bank sidings? How difficult would it be to lay a few hundred metres of track (and the associated signalling) in order that there is some capacity to store units rather than have them clogging up the through platforms?

James

Network Rail is selling off the former Red Bank sidings site as unsuitable for future railway use. See https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/39411/notice-red-bank-manchester.pdf.

It is Network Rail’s opinion that land disposal consent should be granted as the above objections do not demonstrate ‘reasonably foreseeable railway use’ for the property. Additionally, as noted in the comments at no. 27 of the consultation report, DfT have confirmed that they support this approach given the basis of the objections and the conclusions reached at the workshop.

 

[Esker-pades]

Be interested to hear others' thoughts about my idea above for merging the Southport-Alderley service into the Cumbria-Airport at Bolton, to free up a path through Castlefield?

Are there any obvious stumbling blocks for doing this?

The rolling stock for a start. 195s coupling to whatever Pacer/Sprinter is on the Southport service is not a thing. When it goes to 769s, that also won't be a thing.

Then, timetabling. Do the Cumbria - Airport & Southport - Alderley Edge services have paths at either end? You'd probably have to do a recast of several services to fit this one in.

Also, Cumbria - Airport services run via Chat Moss and Wigan (not Bolton).


Basically, it's not really possible.

 

[Philip]

The rolling stock for a start. 195s coupling to whatever Pacer/Sprinter is on the Southport service is not a thing. When it goes to 769s, that also won't be a thing.

Then, timetabling. Do the Cumbria - Airport & Southport - Alderley Edge services have paths at either end? You'd probably have to do a recast of several services to fit this one in.

Also, Cumbria - Airport services run via Chat Moss and Wigan (not Bolton).


Basically, it's not really possible.

Running via Chat Moss is neither here nor there; I did state that the service would continue to call at Wigan, by taking the Westhoughton line. A class 195 could work to Southport so that coupling is possible. The concern here is capacity; whether a 195/0 would be sufficient for each portion.

 

[Esker-pades]

Running via Chat Moss is neither here nor there; I did state that the service would continue to call at Wigan, by taking the Westhoughton line. A class 195 could work to Southport so that coupling is possible. The concern here is capacity; whether a 195/0 would be sufficient for each portion.

Do the Cumbria - Airport & Southport - Alderley Edge services have paths at either end? Southbound, Southport services stop at Oxford Road at XX:33, and the Cumbria services at XX:56. Northbound, it's XX:21 and XX:51. You'd have to do a recast of at least one of these services. Both services pass through areas with significant capacity constraints, so re-timing one is not going to happen without adjustment of a lot of other services.

 

[js1000]

I'd agree with this, but add:
- Terminate Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport service at Piccadilly to remove conflicts in the station throat or at Slade Lane Jn between Stockport and Airport routes
- Remove the Preston to Manchester Victoria all stations service which takes 55 mins and has 5 mins turnaround at either end, and routinely has days where the entire service runs with delays. Compromise with additional calls in one of the other 2tph from Blackpool and divert the 1tph Blackpool to Hazel Grove service to the Airport; the two above leave the only conflicting move at Slade Lane the hourly EMR service.
- Run services from Barrow and Windermere no further South than Lancaster or Oxenholme respectively with connections into TPE Scottish services which are faster anyway

That way you'd have about 11tph through the Castlefield corridor including a freight path which would run via Styal/Heald Green and no more than 8tph between Manchester and the Airport which ought to work robustly off the four platforms.

This would be fine but the service from Blackpool North to Manchester Airport is equally poor, calls at all the stations that the Victoria service does and which only has a 9 minute turnaround itself.