Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[edwin_m]

Presumably DfT civil servants or their advisers did model the operation of the proposed timetable over the South Junction line after the construction of the Castlefield Curve/Ordsall Chord and found that it worked. Did their modelling assume that in such a complicated area, with all the flat junctions and different types of services that people have mentioned, everything always ran on time? Or did they already assume the coming of the magic digital railway that would solve all problems at a stroke and avoid the need for spending the sort of money that seems to be available for public transport in provincial cities in civilised Europe as a matter of course?

I have no specific knowledge of this project, but it would be normal to do a RailSys simulation where trains entering the simulation are given random delays but the distribution of delays is representative of the punctuality of actual trains when passing that location. It's possible that the simulation predicted reasonable performance but the current wider area chaos means that trains are approaching much later on average, and this is causing extra conflict and a snowball effect on the delays encountered in the Ordsall-Castlefield area. It's also possible that the simulation was done on the full Northern Hub scheme including the Piccadilly and Oxford Road works, and when the government at the time approved just Ordsall Chord that went ahead without much analysis of what was considered to be only an interim solution.

 

[markem41]

...RailSys simulation...

You may well be right but it would be much more accurate to take the lift up Beetham Tower and watch the fun unfold!

 

[Greybeard33]

I didn't say it would be cheap to reopen the viaduct! I am questioning the sense of putting an extra 4tph over a web of flat junctions that is already unreliable.

But where is the evidence that it is the flat junctions that are causing the current unreliability? As I see it, the main issue is that eastbound trains are queuing to enter Piccadilly Platform 13. This causes tailbacks through Oxford Road and the junctions.

Aggravating factors are the over-optimistic clockface timetable that is causing delays through the TPE core; inadequate turnround times scheduled for the TPE Airport via Ordsall Chord services; and TPE's habit of terminating late-running Airport services at Piccadilly, increasing dwell time and dumping more passengers on the overcrowded platform.

As delays escalate, overcrowding on the island gets worse, causing dwell times on both platforms to increase in a vicious circle.

Modelling may have predicted that an average platform reoccupation time of about 4.5 minutes (after allowing for the freight path) would be robust, even though the majority of services are intercity or regional and the majority of passengers change at Piccadilly, but real world experience says otherwise.

Flying junctions could not cram any more trains through P13/P14.

 

[PR1Berske]

If money can be found for tunnelling in cities like Antwerp and Leipzig, then why not for Manchester? Or is it just that this is centralised Britain, where the only city that has a claim to high-quality modern infrastructure is London?

There's a lot of truth in that, London has so much financial and economic sway, in addition to all the local and national government organisations, that it will always be the focus for investment.

We are a highly centralised country. London gets what London wants, broadly speaking. We can see in the lack of infrastructure across the North and Wales that London is the focus of where money is spent (as well, of course, is earned)

 

[AndrewE]

Flying junctions could not cram any more trains through P13/P14.

but combined with double-decking the viaduct, platforms 13 &14 and Oxford Rd they would be a game-changer.

 

[HSTEd]

Ideally we would spend the money required that essentially all the trains through Picadilly could proceed through the Castlefield corridor.

Which means grade seperations and the extra platforms, and probably an ETCS overlay to allow trains to enter platforms before the previous one has fully left it.

 

[CdBrux]

Ideally we would spend the money required that essentially all the trains through Picadilly could proceed through the Castlefield corridor.

Which means grade seperations and the extra platforms, and probably an ETCS overlay to allow trains to enter platforms before the previous one has fully left it.

What, even the local services that terminate in Piccadilly? For that I would think you would be better off tunneling to avoid such a quantity of trains even using the Castlefield corridor. However I think that is some way into the future if at all, especially if NPR takes some of the current regional services off the Castlefield corridor.

What is unclear for me after all the discussion here is would 15 & 16 plus the Oxford Road platform lengthenings on their own make a difference compared to a situation where the rostering / route knowledge / staffing issues with the new timetable are sorted, so it can become more evident where the real bottlenecks are? Are they needed to deliver the franchise agreements or not? Can shorter signalling blocks be an option?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is unclear for me after all the discussion here is would 15 & 16 plus the Oxford Road platform lengthenings on their own make a difference

Yes, they absolutely would, because there will always be delays and trains ending up on the corridor out of course.

 

[HSTEd]

What, even the local services that terminate in Piccadilly? For that I would think you would be better off tunneling to avoid such a quantity of trains even using the Castlefield corridor. However I think that is some way into the future if at all, especially if NPR takes some of the current regional services off the Castlefield corridor.

Well ideally there would be no terminating local services in Picadilly.
The services would run through to Glazebrook or Birchwood or Irlam or similar, or through to Stalybridge and other stations in that direction.

 

[Chester1]

But where is the evidence that it is the flat junctions that are causing the current unreliability? As I see it, the main issue is that eastbound trains are queuing to enter Piccadilly Platform 13. This causes tailbacks through Oxford Road and the junctions.

Aggravating factors are the over-optimistic clockface timetable that is causing delays through the TPE core; inadequate turnround times scheduled for the TPE Airport via Ordsall Chord services; and TPE's habit of terminating late-running Airport services at Piccadilly, increasing dwell time and dumping more passengers on the overcrowded platform.

As delays escalate, overcrowding on the island gets worse, causing dwell times on both platforms to increase in a vicious circle.

Modelling may have predicted that an average platform reoccupation time of about 4.5 minutes (after allowing for the freight path) would be robust, even though the majority of services are intercity or regional and the majority of passengers change at Piccadilly, but real world experience says otherwise.

Flying junctions could not cram any more trains through P13/P14.

I don't think flying junctions would enable more trains through Piccadilly platforms 13 and 14. Until May there where only 8tph of through trains at Piccadilly and I think 3-4tph terminating at Oxford Road. Do we actually need more than 12tph through the whole corridor? If 12tph is an acceptable limit for the forseeable future then the rebuilding of Oxford Road with 4 longer through platforms could go ahead. If / when 12tph becomes inadequate then Piccadilly 15 and 16 could be built providing that the surrounding network can support an extra 4tph.

12tph through Piccadilly would more reliable if Northern are banned from using rolling stock with end doors and preferably DMUs too (apart from 195s), which is possible if the timetable was redesigned for next year with the aim of sorting out the Castlefield corridor. Regardless of designs for Castlefield Junction and Ordsall Lane Junction need to be finalised and the land bought and / or safeguarded from the rapid development of Manchester city centre.

 

[js1000]

But where is the evidence that it is the flat junctions that are causing the current unreliability? As I see it, the main issue is that eastbound trains are queuing to enter Piccadilly Platform 13. This causes tailbacks through Oxford Road and the junctions.

Aggravating factors are the over-optimistic clockface timetable that is causing delays through the TPE core; inadequate turnround times scheduled for the TPE Airport via Ordsall Chord services; and TPE's habit of terminating late-running Airport services at Piccadilly, increasing dwell time and dumping more passengers on the overcrowded platform.

As delays escalate, overcrowding on the island gets worse, causing dwell times on both platforms to increase in a vicious circle.

Modelling may have predicted that an average platform reoccupation time of about 4.5 minutes (after allowing for the freight path) would be robust, even though the majority of services are intercity or regional and the majority of passengers change at Piccadilly, but real world experience says otherwise.

Flying junctions could not cram any more trains through P13/P14.

I have seen all of the above in the past 2 months or so. It is unsustainable. However there is no easy solution and any new platforms or remodelling of the viaducts would be extremely expensive and disruption would be widespread.

I always thought the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposal for a tunnel under Manchester was nonsense until the new timetable came in. That'll get you 8 services per hour I believe and theoretically less disruption.

 

[notlob.divad]

12tph through Piccadilly would more reliable if Northern are banned from using rolling stock with end doors

But TPM are about to introduce a fleet that is entirely made up of end-door stock. You can ban northern doing something all you want, but if the other major operator through the route is about to undo your changes, then you will be left with the same situation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I always thought the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposal for a tunnel under Manchester was nonsense until the new timetable came in. That'll get you 8 services per hour I believe and theoretically less disruption.

What was nonsense was planning to put any more services through Castlefield without building 15/16. The pre-1998 timetable was unreliable, let alone those since.

As for boarding times, I think the main issue is caused by excessively short trains. If there were plenty of seats boarding would be much quicker even with end doors (though I agree doors at thirds would make more sense for trains through this corridor). So there is a need to have everything running as 8x20m/6x23m except at very quiet times - so the Oxford Road extensions are also vital.

In the meantime, if they reseated the Class 150s and 319s to have the Thameslink layout (i.e. 2+2 at 3+2 width) this would improve boarding times significantly - the Class 700 principle, as it were. Because the actual seats aren't as hard as a rock, this layout isn't all that unpleasant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But TPM are about to introduce a fleet that is entirely made up of end-door stock. You can ban northern doing something all you want, but if the other major operator through the route is about to undo your changes, then you will be left with the same situation.

Well, there's another evil of the Ordsall Chord. Without it you could have had them all either going via Vic (if continuing to Liverpool) or terminating in the terminal platforms, and then they would be no issue. Then very nearly everything else would have been doors at thirds - and if you dumped any remaining 3+2 as per my previous post it'd be better still.

 

[Eccles1983]

Ban end door stock?

That will be ATW/EMT knackered as well then.

You'll sort out the problems then I suppose, as only northern and tpe could ever use 13/14.

 

[absolutelymilk]

But TPM are about to introduce a fleet that is entirely made up of end-door stock. You can ban northern doing something all you want, but if the other major operator through the route is about to undo your changes, then you will be left with the same situation.

Those trains will all be at least five cars though, which should (hopefully) help a bit with dwell times.

 

[IanXC]

TPE's habit of terminating late-running Airport services at Piccadilly, increasing dwell time and dumping more passengers on the overcrowded platform.

I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of North TPE airport services terminated short at Piccadilly do so by diverting via Guide Bridge (failing to call at Victoria and Oxford Road), precisely to avoid the problem you describe!

 

[Greybeard33]

What is unclear for me after all the discussion here is would 15 & 16 plus the Oxford Road platform lengthenings on their own make a difference compared to a situation where the rostering / route knowledge / staffing issues with the new timetable are sorted, so it can become more evident where the real bottlenecks are? Are they needed to deliver the franchise agreements or not? Can shorter signalling blocks be an option?

Well, TftN seems to think that P15/P16 are needed to deliver the current timetable reliably, according to this story in the Manchester Evening News:

Following a Transport for the North board meeting on Tuesday, which included updates from Northern, TransPennine and Network Rail , members have cast doubts over the network returning to ‘normal’ this year.

A spokesman said: “After a wide-ranging discussion, the Board concluded that it had not received sufficient assurance that current plans and a move to the full May timetable in September are fully deliverable.

“The Board is concerned that train performance targets will continue to not be fully met, on the basis of current performance levels and network infrastructure constraints.”

These ’constraints’ are understood to include the lack of enough platforms at Piccadilly.

In original Network Rail plans, the station’s through-platforms, 13 and 14, were to be modernised and two new platforms - 15 and 16 - built over Fairfield Street to alleviate congestion.

It was aimed at allowing for 14 trains through Castlefield and the station each hour as opposed to 10.

It would also ensure that the £85m Ordsall Chord , track linking Piccadilly and Victoria which opened last year, could fulfil its potential.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of North TPE airport services terminated short at Piccadilly do so by diverting via Guide Bridge (failing to call at Victoria and Oxford Road), precisely to avoid the problem you describe!

I don't think so. See this example from yesterday, which terminated in P13 22L. The thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scarborough-tpex-reliability.165578/ has reports of many similar cases since May. Diversions via Guide Bridge are much less frequent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think so. See this example from yesterday, which terminated in P13 22L. The thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scarborough-tpex-reliability.165578/ has reports of many similar cases since May. Diversions via Guide Bridge are much less frequent.

There should certainly be an outright ban on terminating trains in Platforms 13/14, with financial penalties if the TOC fails to organise themselves such that this cannot be avoided.

 

[jfollows]

Well, TftN seems to think that P15/P16 are needed to deliver the current timetable reliably, according to this story in the Manchester Evening News:

Given the 319 arriving in the picture with caption "Northern Rail commuters wait at Bolton Station" how seriously do we take this newspaper?
More seriously, this is an interesting thread, I think any changes to Slade Lane Junction are a solution looking for a problem and would only enable timetable planners in Milton Keynes to cram even more trains into the timetable, but the 15/16 platforms at Piccadilly are vital for any future reliable service as planned for May 2018. Oh, and the pre-2018 timetable wasn't reliable either, I gave up getting trains from Oxford Road to Manchester Airport when I lived in Manchester, just too unreliable for words even in 1996.

 

[notlob.divad]

Well, there's another evil of the Ordsall Chord. Without it you could have had them all either going via Vic (if continuing to Liverpool) or terminating in the terminal platforms, and then they would be no issue. Then very nearly everything else would have been doors at thirds - and if you dumped any remaining 3+2 as per my previous post it'd be better still.

Fully agree with you.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Headway along there is already 3 minutes, with allowances for 2 minute headways, but there is a capacity limit we put on it at 13tph between Picc and Oxford Road. We allow 15tph between Oxford Road and Deansgate as long as 2 are terminating at Oxford Road.

and 15tph is pushing it over Castlefield Junction, somewhat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

and 15tph is pushing it over Castlefield Junction, somewhat.

That's only a train every 4 minutes, I see no reason it shouldn't cope with that. It's station work that takes time unless you are using metro style trains.

 

[MarkyT]

Flying junctions could not cram any more trains through P13/P14.

Quite!

Given the 319 arriving in the picture with caption "Northern Rail commuters wait at Bolton Station" how seriously do we take this newspaper?
More seriously, this is an interesting thread, I think any changes to Slade Lane Junction are a solution looking for a problem and would only enable timetable planners in Milton Keynes to cram even more trains into the timetable, but the 15/16 platforms at Piccadilly are vital for any future reliable service as planned for May 2018. Oh, and the pre-2018 timetable wasn't reliable either, I gave up getting trains from Oxford Road to Manchester Airport when I lived in Manchester, just too unreliable for words even in 1996.

I think due to little space being available within the railway fence and nearby residences and roads, Slade Lane could be very difficult, if not impossible, to grade separate. It's not bad today with maximum parallel flat movements enabled by its layout, although it might be possible to improve a little further even as a flat junction with higher speed turnouts. There's even an alternative parallel weave via the down slow for down fast trains to shimmy around a conflicting up move and rejoin the fast line at the next right hand full ladder junction, assuming there's nothing coming from Heald Green at the time. In my view the majority of slow line stopping trains from Stockport should continue to use the terminus part of Piccadilly to reduce conflict, as now. Any waiting of the up slows at Levenshulme to allow fasts to precede or cross can be made up in pathing and terminal layover time. Better to concentrate grade separation efforts at Edgeley Junctions where there appears to be more space.

 

[Mollman]

Tunnelling will have to be used sooner or later to thread more railways and roads through heavily congested city centres. The London Underground has been proving that since the 19th Century. Crossrail and the Thames Tideway prove we have the tunnelling skills to create and build a Manchester crossrail line. Money is, of course, the problem.

There was of course the PicVic proposal. Two things affect the idea of tunneling:
1. It is becoming a serious suggestion that Bristol may have some kind of underground railway - this may trigger other cities looking at it (Leeds keeps being another one that gets mentioned)
2. TfGM have talked about the city centre tram lines becoming close to capacity - any further expansion might need alternatives routes, as these are likely to be tram-train conversions of Marple and Atherton lines then it makes sense to keep these as heavy rail but send through a central tunnel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something like the Haagse Tramtunnel might well be in order for Metrolink - cut and cover just below the surface. As trams can turn tight corners easily, it wouldn't be hard to make it follow roads so you can build it that way without damaging buildings. Loads cheaper than getting the TBMs out.

That doesn't of course solve the Castlefield line issue. But there is really no great issue with putting trains through a double track at 1-2 minute intervals, LU does it all the time, as does Thameslink. What's needed is spare platforms at Picc so you can maintain that throughput with the longer stops you get on longer-distance services. The difference that would make is huge compared with anything else, and it's been needed for years.

 

[js1000]

What was nonsense was planning to put any more services through Castlefield without building 15/16. The pre-1998 timetable was unreliable, let alone those since.

As for boarding times, I think the main issue is caused by excessively short trains. If there were plenty of seats boarding would be much quicker even with end doors (though I agree doors at thirds would make more sense for trains through this corridor). So there is a need to have everything running as 8x20m/6x23m except at very quiet times - so the Oxford Road extensions are also vital.

In the meantime, if they reseated the Class 150s and 319s to have the Thameslink layout (i.e. 2+2 at 3+2 width) this would improve boarding times significantly - the Class 700 principle, as it were. Because the actual seats aren't as hard as a rock, this layout isn't all that unpleasant.

I completely agree. Building the Ordsall Chord without eliminating the bottleneck further down the line is an example of wacky planning. At the moment it is a £100 million white elephant for the 2 services each way that use it.

You would have to do the whole shebang/marginal gains to achieve the 14tph through Manchester and ensure it is a reliable operation.

- Platform extension to Oxford Road.
- New through platforms at Piccadilly
- Reconfiguration with multiple steps to Piccadilly platforms 13-16 rather than everyone standing at the same place on the platform and slowing embarkation.
- Greater optimisation of the trains to allow quick alighting/boarding. The amount of end door DMUs Northern use on the corridor through Manchester doesn't help.
- Greater optimisation of services. The existing timetable is not ideal and has clearly been a rush job. I think some services could be curtailed to terminate at Piccadilly with two new platforms. The hourly Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport has proven somewhat unreliable and one that I would make hourly, with the other being a shuttle from Manchester to Crewe terminating into platform 16. At the moment capacity on 13/14 doesn't allow it and the alternative for it to cut across the throat of the services on 13/14 is not preferable.
- Find an alternative route for the two freight trains per hour through Manchester!

I just hope the DfT have a plan to tackle the bottleneck issue because it is a problem that needs a money and a solution. He may claim to know very little about trains but Grayling has been asleep at the wheel on the issue of capacity through Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

and 15tph is pushing it over Castlefield Junction, somewhat.

I don't disagree sir, but I won't comment on that any further.

That's only a train every 4 minutes, I see no reason it shouldn't cope with that. It's station work that takes time unless you are using metro style trains.

That is a train every 4 minutes solidly an hour, every hour. Not even the most ambitious of planners would attempt that as its suicidal, even with the small buffers planning rules have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a train every 4 minutes solidly an hour, every hour. Not even the most ambitious of planners would attempt that as its suicidal, even with the small buffers planning rules have.

Liverpool loop: 4 New Brighton, 4 Chester, 4 West Kirby, 2 Ellesmere Port. That's 14tph.
Northern Line: 4 Ormskirk, 4 Kirkby, 4 Southport/Hunts X. That's 12tph, with 8 of those 12 terminating and reversing in a two platform station (Central).
LUL
Thameslink

It can be done, it just needs planning properly and suitable rolling stock.