Potential fix for Ordsall Chord?

[AlbertBeale]

The trains that also serve North Wales as identified.

Well - one an hour? Hardly a major part of the Castlefield congestion.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Well - one an hour? Hardly a major part of the Castlefield congestion.

Yes but it reduces paths without reducing connectivity. You could make the corridor much more reliable by removing 10 services per hour but that would massively reduce connectivity which is surely the key purpose of the railway?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Yes but it reduces paths without reducing connectivity. You could make the corridor much more reliable by removing 10 services per hour but that would massively reduce connectivity which is surely the key purpose of the railway?

But it does reduce connectivity - precisely by no longer serving stations it doesn't now run via.

Surely - by definition - reducing paths reduces connectivity, unless you remove a service from a route where it has no station stops!

 

[A S Leib]

Of all the places that should be cut off from Manchester Airport, the Cumbria services (full of tourists) are probably last on the list. They are 6 cars in the peak for a reason.

The most common origins / destinations for Manchester Airport via Bolton north of Deansgate are Preston (29,276 passengers per year), Bolton (19,612), Lancaster (17,063), Blackpool North (14,469), Edinburgh (6987), Oxenholme Lake District (6288, or 17 per day), Horwich Parkway (5346), Poulton-le-Fylde (4778), Carlisle (4417), Glasgow Central (4411) and Barrow-in-Furness (4114, or 11 per day). Windermere has 2060 per year, which is fewer than Bradford Interchange (2474) and only slightly more than Nottingham (1993). In the absence of anywhere else to terminate Cumbria services it makes some sense to keep the current situation, but of all the places that shouldn't be cut off from Manchester Airport, Sheffield (25,525, with another ~10,000 from stations towards Cleethorpes) and Newcastle (6943 with a extra 5200 from Durham and Darlington) have more demand (although I think having services reversing at Piccadilly means scrapping direct Sheffield–MIA services makes slightly more sense, and I can't remember if the loss of Newcastle–Piccadilly services is meant to be for a year or two whilst TPE solves its shortages or longer).

 

[biggerisbetter]

But it does reduce connectivity - precisely by no longer serving stations it doesn't now run via.

Surely - by definition - reducing paths reduces connectivity, unless you remove a service from a route where it has no station stops!

Yes fair enough a more accurate description would have been a reduction in paths with a limited reduction in connectivity or as limited reduction in capacity as possible.

What out of interest would you consider an appropriate reduction in the number of services running through the corridor and how would you achieve this?

 

[The Planner]

The Airport is getting longer platforms in the next few years anyway, they are being extended out into the throat.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jan 2024 ==

Reduces platform pressure at the airport allowing longer trains assisting with dwell time through Castlefield.

Would allow Chester and North Wales services currently travelling via Warrington Bank Quay to travel via Northwich linking to a northern or TPE service maintaining connectivity to the airport and Manchester City Centre but removing a path from Castlefield.

Also allows Northern services terminating at the airport to be extended potentially allowing reopening of Middlewich branch and improving services to Northwich. Would need additional investment in addition to the airport western link itself but would deliver a wide range of benefits.

But again, its another over Slade Lane. You are just shuffling the goalposts. Middlewich makes no difference to this apart from adding more trains on a line that still uses absolute block signalling.

 

[biggerisbetter]

It is not another over Slade Lane if joined with an existing service that terminates at the airport as suggested.

 

[Krokodil]

Presumably though, turnaround times are not as generous as would be ideal to clear the platforms to allow the next train to arrive. With only 4 terminating platforms you can’t have long trains and long turnaround times for the frequency of services at the airport. A quick check tomorrow of one of the Edinburgh trains sees a 20-minute turnaround for a three and a half hour journey.

In my experience though the issues are generally in the other direction. It's the queue for Up trains to get into Oxford Road that gets out of hand. Down trains from the Airport seldom cause issues.

 

[Greybeard33]

It is not another over Slade Lane if joined with an existing service that terminates at the airport as suggested.

The existing services that terminate at the Airport, other than the TfW, are from Liverpool, Blackpool, Barrow/Windermere, Glasgow/Edinburgh and Saltburn. Extending any of those to Llandudno via Northwich would make a ridiculously long route, requiring en route crew changes, which would likely import more delays into the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Krokodil]

The existing services that terminate at the Airport, other than the TfW, are from Liverpool, Blackpool, Barrow/Windermere, Glasgow/Edinburgh and Saltburn. Extending any of those to Llandudno via Northwich would make a ridiculously long route, requiring en route crew changes, which would likely import more delays into the Castlefield corridor.

That's true for most of them, but the Saltburn one comes from the NE so that alone wouldn't be a circuitous route.

Would be better though if NPR can remove the class ones from Castlefield altogether.

 

[cslusarc]

Got to solve the issue of the farm crossings first.

Why do those farm crossings still exist on the Mid-Cheshire Line as those farms were split by the railway about 150 years ago?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Why do those farm crossings still exist on the Mid-Cheshire Line as those farms were split by the railway about 150 years ago?

You’ve answered your own question. There are plenty of farms ‘still’ split by railways.

 

[8A Rail]

Why do those farm crossings still exist on the Mid-Cheshire Line as those farms were split by the railway about 150 years ago?

What do you propose to get rid of them please without costing a fortune with 'occupation bridges"? Could ask the farmers to abandon their fields, i.e don't use them, tell them to find alternative way including accessing 'other' farmers / landowners fields, get a big hand from the sky to pick up the tractors / loads and carry them across the tracks or best one ask Network Rail to close and lift the railway line, then no crossings required!

 

[Jack Hay]

What do you propose to get rid of them please without costing a fortune with 'occupation bridges"? Could ask the farmers to abandon their fields, i.e don't use them, tell them to find alternative way including accessing 'other' farmers / landowners fields, get a big hand from the sky to pick up the tractors / loads and carry them across the tracks or best one ask Network Rail to close and lift the railway line, then no crossings required!

The farm crossings on the Mid Cheshire are being addressed by better safety measures (two are already done, maybe all three) so the risk assessment should change.