Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[yorksrob]

No - the timetable itself is overcomplicated, with trains from everywhere to everywhere. Certain trains take a disproportionate share of capacity, in particular certain services to/from the Airport. The Scotch service should terminate at Victoria, Standedge services not proceeding west of Manchester should terminate at Piccadilly or Victoria and not use the Castlefield corridor, and the Hope Valley service that currently reverses at Piccadilly to go to the Airport should run via the CLC line to Liverpool to parallel the existing service on this route. Each route that is retained should have a basic half-hourly service pattern in most instances without significant variations, at least as far as the key towns on the edge of Greater Manchester. The present timetable is far too confusing to passengers, and given the unreliability, unusable in many instances.

Northern/TPE are too far gone for the DfT to be persuaded to throw more money (for infrastructure, new trains or increased service subsidies) at the basket case that is (heavy rail in) NW England. It has to be "make do and mend". The DfT might be persuaded to fund some heavy rail conversions to Metrolink, which has been far more successful.

The DfT need to be reminded that their half-baked programme of cancellations and uncompleted projects are to blame for this situation. No one forced them to make a franchise out of all the loss making services in the North of England. It has always been within their power to build Great Western style franchises with a more even distribution of route types, but they have chosen not to do this.

Northern is a DfT invention.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe most passengers don't just turn up at the station and get the next train now

Almost nobody does. For a medium to long distance route most will book in advance the first time. Frequent users will use online departure boards etc to see which to go for.

but catering to people currently willing to use the railway is not the long term ambition for TPE, nor a sustainable future for a loss making route.

Nor is having people use it once then never use it again because it is awful. Which will be happening now in droves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The DfT need to be reminded that their half-baked programme of cancellations and uncompleted projects are to blame for this situation. No one forced them to make a franchise out of all the loss making services in the North of England. It has always been within their power to build Great Western style franchises with a more even distribution of route types, but they have chosen not to do this.

Northern is a DfT invention.

I would agree and still hold the view that TPE should have stayed in.

 

[Greybeard33]

This is why I say, if the extra paths from the South to Piccadilly haven't materialised, then go back to reversing TPE airport services there.

As a matter of fact, there is a second hourly service from Piccadilly to Buxton, which would not have been feasible without the Ordsall Chord.

Just because something is politically unlikely, doesn't make it unnecessary.

Politics aside, it would not be feasible to reverse 130m long 802s and Mk5A sets at Piccadilly four times per hour. There are neither the paths nor the platform space.

I note from previous posts that you've already given up on actually pressuring the authorities to complete the infrastructure works necessary to make the Curve services fit.

On the contrary, I am fully supportive of the recommendations of the report that TfN adopted at its 08 January Board Meeting (Item 5 download at https://transportforthenorth.com/calendar/transport-north-board-8-january-2020/).

These include:

• Immediate approval of the TWAO for the Package C Piccadilly/Oxford Road works
• Immediate approval of the Victoria eastern turnback
• Manchester Airport platform lengthening/additional platforms to be progressed urgently (2020-21)
• Early development of three "quick-wins" (no details*)
• Ordsall Lane Junction grade separation to be progressed
• Salford Crescent remodelling to be progressed

However, it will clearly take several years for these infrastructure projects to be delivered, so I also agree with the TfN report that there should be short term, palliative timetable changes to alleviate congestion and improve service reliability.

*The report says that Network Rail is evaluating potential infrastructure schemes at nine locations north and west of Manchester and will recommend a shortlist in February.

 

[yorksrob]

As a matter of fact, there is a second hourly service from Piccadilly to Buxton, which would not have been feasible without the Ordsall Chord.

I hadn't been aware, but it's good news that there is.

Politics aside, it would not be feasible to reverse 130m long 802s and Mk5A sets at Piccadilly four times per hour. There are neither the paths nor the platform space.

Not all North TPE's would reverse at Pic. As it stands, some terminate, and whilst I'm aware of the procedure of stacking units in the terminal platforms, they are very long and are by no means all full, all of the time.

On the contrary, I am fully supportive of the recommendations of the report that TfN adopted at its 08 January Board Meeting (Item 5 download at https://transportforthenorth.com/calendar/transport-north-board-8-january-2020/).

These include:

• Immediate approval of the TWAO for the Package C Piccadilly/Oxford Road works
• Immediate approval of the Victoria eastern turnback
• Manchester Airport platform lengthening/additional platforms to be progressed urgently (2020-21)
• Early development of three "quick-wins" (no details*)
• Ordsall Lane Junction grade separation to be progressed
• Salford Crescent remodelling to be progressed

However, it will clearly take several years for these infrastructure projects to be delivered, so I also agree with the TfN report that there should be short term, palliative timetable changes to alleviate congestion and improve service reliability.

*The report says that Network Rail is evaluating potential infrastructure schemes at nine locations north and west of Manchester and will recommend a shortlist in February.

We can agree on that. The TPE's could resume their paths round the curve when these are completed.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Northern/TPE are too far gone for the DfT to be persuaded to throw more money (for infrastructure, new trains or increased service subsidies) at the basket case that is (heavy rail in) NW England. It has to be "make do and mend". The DfT might be persuaded to fund some heavy rail conversions to Metrolink, which has been far more successful.

With an attitude like that who needs an anti-northern civil service to decide that we in the north are second class citizens when you seem happy to make that declaration not only for yourself but on behalf of the rest of us? Does the region need decent rail services or not? Perhaps from your POV these discussions are all hypothetical and the real-life situation is of no concern to you. But actual rail users, as well as those who benefit from traffic being taken off our over-crowded roads, most definitely do care and need the improvements being discussed. It needs ambition to push for these improvements and thankfully most local stakeholders seem to possess it.

 

[DPWH]

Ok, here's my plan.

Four track the corridor from the CLC lines from Castlefield Junction, through Deansgate to Oxford Road. The new lines will be slightly to the north between Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road. This will require slewing Whitworth Street to the north which in turn will require demolition of various buildings on Whitworth Street itself - but these don't look too expensive. Everything off the CLC lines will terminate at Oxford Road. That takes a bit of pressure off Castlefield junction.

 

[Emyr]

In 2019 I can remember flying from Manchester Airport 4 times, all within the EU with Lufthansa, leaving Friday and returning Monday.

One time, I took the train from Moses Gate, changed at Salford Crescent, then again at Piccadilly. The other 3 times I drove to Chorlton and took Metrolink from St Werburgh's Road. I'd rather not park away from home for 3 nights, but the time wasted loitering on platforms makes it impossible to catch the first train from many minor stations and arrive at the airport early enough for a pre-10am flight.

 

[HSTEd]

Ok, here's my plan.

Four track the corridor from the CLC lines from Castlefield Junction, through Deansgate to Oxford Road. The new lines will be slightly to the north between Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road. This will require slewing Whitworth Street to the north which in turn will require demolition of various buildings on Whitworth Street itself - but these don't look too expensive. Everything off the CLC lines will terminate at Oxford Road. That takes a bit of pressure off Castlefield junction.

Why would you slew Whitworth Street rather than simply building the railway out over it?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Lillian Greenwood has put down a question

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to his oral evidence of 16 October 2019 to the Transport Committee, Questions 13 and 14, what progress has been made on resolving the problems relating to platforms 13 and 14 at Manchester Piccadilly station.

which im surmising as its Shapps turn in Parliament this week on Thursday will get an answer then albeit it will be swerve from SoS no doubt

 

[Meerkat]

Lillian Greenwood has put down a question which im surmising as its Shapps turn in Parliament this week on Thursday will get an answer then albeit it will be swerve from SoS no doubt

I assume Boris would steal the announcement from Shapps if they were green lighting 15/16?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I assume Boris would steal the announcement from Shapps if they were green lighting 15/16?

I dont do spin but you can see this being HS2 phase 1 goes ahead, phase 2 paused but we are pushing on with Castlefield as its oven ready(ish) and by the way we kicked Northern off the patch as well as thankyou to our new tory voting constituents up N'orth

 

[Mathew S]

I assume Boris would steal the announcement from Shapps if they were green lighting 15/16?

Not necessarily, if Boris is not ready to make the HS2 announcement he may rather keep schtum to avoid being asked.

 

[GingerSte]

OK here's my plan. Be warned: it's a bit ambitious.

Take trains from Boston/Preston (and further) to the airport through Man Vic instead. Turn right at Miles Platting Junction and right again at Philips Park Junction. Build a new viaduct from the line starting at Philips Park Junction over the line between Ardwick and Ashbury's, to meet the viaduct between Man Pic and Longsight. At this point, the viaduct supports 6 tracks@ 4 in passenger service and 2 accessing Longsight Depot.



This is a slightly longer route, but not by much. I doubt that 2.2 miles is going to make a massive difference to demand from the NW of Manchester.



Supports for the new flyover would be adjacent to the piers of the existing viaduct. The new piers would be tied into the existing for stability. This would also limit the effects of the works on the adjacent landowners.


(I haven't shown the foundations for the new piers in the Section C-C away from piers, but these could be there and not affect the use of the land, as these would be underground.)

Speaking of landowners, there is a container yard to the NE of the Man Pic - Longsight viaduct (unfortunately I don't know its name). Even with mitigation, some land would be lost to the owners. However, there is a car park to the north of this site used by the office block on Devonshire Street. If the contractors for this scheme were to build a multi-storey car park for the office block, the land to the NE of the railway could be transferred to the container yard and their land loss mitigated. (complicated - yes I know!)

This scheme also includes a flyover, so that trains to/from Preston can access Philips Park Junction without clashing with other services to/from Stalybridge (eg Transpennine). This would utilise some of the existing railway land to the north of the Manchester-Rochdale line. As far as I can see, this flyover would be wholly on NR land.

In addition, bring back the disused viaduct NW of Deansgate Station. Shift the Metrolink to this viaduct and have a connection to the heavy rail line from Warrington on the (now) vacated Metrolink viaduct. Put two terminating platforms for Deansgate Station where the Metrolink platforms currently are (along with two Metrolink platforms in their new place). Note, if any trams are currently terminating at Deansgate and 3 platforms are required for terminating trams, then Cornbrook (one stop SW of Deansgate) would still be available for this.

Obviously untangle the lines around Salford Crescent (separate services to/from Preston and Southport), and between the Ordsall Chord and Man Vic. (This is shown in the first pic above.)

Some of the results from this:

• Trains between Preston and the airport are taken out of the Castlefield corridor.
• Trains between Southport/Eccles and the airport can be split (if needed) between the Castlefield corridor and the new route through Man Vic.
• Trains between Yorkshire and the airport can be split (if needed) between the Castlefield corridor and the new route (albeit with a reversal at Man Vic).
• Terminating some trains from Liverpool via Warrington will remove some of the Congestion on the Castlefield corridor. Extra services could be provided without worrying about Man Pic Platforms.
• This raises the possibility of a heavy rail station serving the SportCity area (Man City's ground, the athletics stadium and the velodrome).

I told you it was ambitious!

 

[Jack Hay]

The two terminating platforms you propose just north of Deansgate station could be called 'Manchester Central' (because they would be in the throat of the former station). Seriously, the lack of facilities to terminate trains from the west and north-west in Manchester after the loss of Central and Exchange stations, and the shrinkage of Victoria, is a large part of the reason for today's congestion. You could reasonably terminate the two-per-hour CLC stoppers somewhere like this, if it could be built, saving two paths an hour each way through Castlefield and without building the Ardwick viaduct you describe.

 

[GingerSte]

The two terminating platforms you propose just north of Deansgate station could be called 'Manchester Central' (because they would be in the throat of the former station). Seriously, the lack of facilities to terminate trains from the west and north-west in Manchester after the loss of Central and Exchange stations, and the shrinkage of Victoria, is a large part of the reason for today's congestion. You could reasonably terminate the two-per-hour CLC stoppers somewhere like this, if it could be built, saving two paths an hour each way through Castlefield and without building the Ardwick viaduct you describe.

It would be a good first step, in my opinion. It would certainly allow additional journeys via Warrington, as only one or two per hour need to carry on through Castlefield to the airport. However, it is only limited to this line, and doesn't solve problems on the other services.

 

[Meerkat]

The two terminating platforms you propose just north of Deansgate station could be called 'Manchester Central' (because they would be in the throat of the former station). Seriously, the lack of facilities to terminate trains from the west and north-west in Manchester after the loss of Central and Exchange stations, and the shrinkage of Victoria, is a large part of the reason for today's congestion. You could reasonably terminate the two-per-hour CLC stoppers somewhere like this, if it could be built, saving two paths an hour each way through Castlefield and without building the Ardwick viaduct you describe.

Calling it central would be very confusing! You would get foreigners thinking they had to change to get from the airport to central Manchester! It would be Deansgate, like the rail and Metrolink platforms it would be between.
As a first stage a new station at Pomona or Cornbrook would be somewhere you could bounce CLC stoppers if things have gone wrong (and create a good interchange for Trafford Park and Media City (and maybe airport/Stockport??)

 

[GingerSte]

I can certainly agree that Cornbrook would be a good changing point for MediaCity etc. However, turning trains back there (presumably you mean from Liverpool/Warrington) is going to leave a lot of annoyed passengers on platforms in central Manchester!

 

[Jack Hay]

If the Castlefield congestion problems had been anticipated 30 years ago (which would have been quite remarkable anticipation!) it would have been better to build Metrolink on the northern of the two CLC viaducts, leaving the southern one free to run a double track link from the site of Cornbrook Junction into a new pair of main line platforms at the side of Manchester Central (where platforms 7-9 used to be, and where the Deansgate-Castlefield tram stop is now). Of course this would have meant, back in the late 1980s, recognising that the decision to build the Windsor Link would lead to capacity problems in the Castlefield corridor. Planners at the time thought that taking out the Altrincham and Mid Cheshire services from the corridor would create enough capacity (and as it removed 5 trains per hour each way off-peak, more in the peaks) you can understand their logic. The opening of the Airport station changed all those planning assumptions by massively increasing demand through the corridor. The Ordsall Curve made it worse.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Manchester Evening News ran a story on 31 January:

Minister hints Manchester may finally get its overdue rail upgrades - and Northern Powerhouse Rail

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-hints-manchester-finally-overdue-17666055

This was based on an interview the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, gave to reporter Jennifer Williams.

To me the weasel worded ministerial quotes in the article do not necessarily amount to a hint that the Piccadilly/Oxford Road Package C scheme will be approved imminently:

Asked why the government is again reviewing plans to upgrade capacity at the centre of the Manchester rail network - five years after they were first drawn up - he said: “I know that the Castlefield corridor is a really, really important piece of infrastructure that’s stretched to its limit. But I also know we are investing huge amounts of money on infrastructure over the next four and a half years.

“You know better than I do that that one pinch point is difficult to find a solution to. There’s been some really wise people looking at it for a long time so I don’t want to second guess their thoughts and processes going forward.”

Pushed on why plans that had been sitting on ministerial desks for years were now being reviewed again, he said: “Well I know they sat there and they are being re-examined as part of this.”

He did not fully commit to paying for the extra platforms originally promised at Piccadilly station, but insisted: “We so want to move forward with finding a solution to that, absolutely.”

It is clear that the DfT has been pushing Network Rail to investigate every conceivable cheaper infrastructure enhancement around Manchester in order to find an excuse for not funding Package C. So it seems to me that the DfT "solution", when eventually revealed, might well be some combination of these cheaper "other options", e.g. central turnback at Oxford Road, eastern turnback siding at Victoria, Manchester Airport platform lengthening, Ordsall Lane Jn grade separation, signalling enhancements in the Castlefield corridor, Salford Crescent remodelling.

The interview also covered service cuts to improve reliability:

The crucial task would be to ‘win back the trust’ of passengers and ‘reset’ the railway network in the north, he said, but - contrary to suggestions by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham this week - cutting services in order to improve reliability would not be happening immediately.

“Not yet,” he said of any potential service cuts, but did not rule them out further down the line.

“It’s really early days. The Operator of Last Resort hasn’t taken over and there’s going to be a 100-day mobilisation plan which is going to be all about the reset.”

So that seems to tie in with hints elsewhere that cuts are likely to be postponed until the December 2020 timetable change.

 

[Jack Hay]

The Manchester Evening News ran a story on 31 January:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-hints-manchester-finally-overdue-17666055

This was based on an interview the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, gave to reporter Jennifer Williams.

To me the weasel worded ministerial quotes in the article do not necessarily amount to a hint that the Piccadilly/Oxford Road Package C scheme will be approved imminently:




It is clear that the DfT has been pushing Network Rail to investigate every conceivable cheaper infrastructure enhancement around Manchester in order to find an excuse for not funding Package C. So it seems to me that the DfT "solution", when eventually revealed, might well be some combination of these cheaper "other options", e.g. central turnback at Oxford Road, eastern turnback siding at Victoria, Manchester Airport platform lengthening, Ordsall Lane Jn grade separation, signalling enhancements in the Castlefield corridor, Salford Crescent remodelling.

The interview also covered service cuts to improve reliability:


So that seems to tie in with hints elsewhere that cuts are likely to be postponed until the December 2020 timetable change.

Most of the so-called cheaper options, whilst certainly cheaper, don't actually solve the problems, do they? Except service cuts, of course. I would much prefer to see real money to be spent solving these problems than being spent on HS2. A big worry about that is that if the government approves HS2, we then get told we've had our share of the money and there's no more for the North West. But actually we'd have got nothing.

 

[158756]

If we must insist on trying to squeeze freight through Castlefield, surely it would be a very simple and cheap improvement for the freight trains to enter the network on time. For example this train today https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H49921/2020-02-03/detailed - 14 minutes early might be better than 14 minutes late, but if the train is 14 minutes early at Cornbrook it is going to have to stop, and starting up stationary freight trains is not going to be good for congestion at Castlefield junction. Other trains today have started 6/7 minutes early, which causes the same issue.

 

[scouseyb123]

OK here's my plan. Be warned: it's a bit ambitious.

Take trains from Boston/Preston (and further) to the airport through Man Vic instead. Turn right at Miles Platting Junction and right again at Philips Park Junction. Build a new viaduct from the line starting at Philips Park Junction over the line between Ardwick and Ashbury's, to meet the viaduct between Man Pic and Longsight. At this point, the viaduct supports 6 tracks@ 4 in passenger service and 2 accessing Longsight Depot.

View attachment 73151

This is a slightly longer route, but not by much. I doubt that 2.2 miles is going to make a massive difference to demand from the NW of Manchester.

View attachment 73153

Supports for the new flyover would be adjacent to the piers of the existing viaduct. The new piers would be tied into the existing for stability. This would also limit the effects of the works on the adjacent landowners.
View attachment 73152

(I haven't shown the foundations for the new piers in the Section C-C away from piers, but these could be there and not affect the use of the land, as these would be underground.)

Speaking of landowners, there is a container yard to the NE of the Man Pic - Longsight viaduct (unfortunately I don't know its name). Even with mitigation, some land would be lost to the owners. However, there is a car park to the north of this site used by the office block on Devonshire Street. If the contractors for this scheme were to build a multi-storey car park for the office block, the land to the NE of the railway could be transferred to the container yard and their land loss mitigated. (complicated - yes I know!)

This scheme also includes a flyover, so that trains to/from Preston can access Philips Park Junction without clashing with other services to/from Stalybridge (eg Transpennine). This would utilise some of the existing railway land to the north of the Manchester-Rochdale line. As far as I can see, this flyover would be wholly on NR land.

In addition, bring back the disused viaduct NW of Deansgate Station. Shift the Metrolink to this viaduct and have a connection to the heavy rail line from Warrington on the (now) vacated Metrolink viaduct. Put two terminating platforms for Deansgate Station where the Metrolink platforms currently are (along with two Metrolink platforms in their new place). Note, if any trams are currently terminating at Deansgate and 3 platforms are required for terminating trams, then Cornbrook (one stop SW of Deansgate) would still be available for this.

Obviously untangle the lines around Salford Crescent (separate services to/from Preston and Southport), and between the Ordsall Chord and Man Vic. (This is shown in the first pic above.)

Some of the results from this:

• Trains between Preston and the airport are taken out of the Castlefield corridor.
• Trains between Southport/Eccles and the airport can be split (if needed) between the Castlefield corridor and the new route through Man Vic.
• Trains between Yorkshire and the airport can be split (if needed) between the Castlefield corridor and the new route (albeit with a reversal at Man Vic).
• Terminating some trains from Liverpool via Warrington will remove some of the Congestion on the Castlefield corridor. Extra services could be provided without worrying about Man Pic Platforms.
• This raises the possibility of a heavy rail station serving the SportCity area (Man City's ground, the athletics stadium and the velodrome).

I told you it was ambitious!

If anyone from NR, DfT, TfGM etc is watching...employ this person immediately!

 

[Glenn1969]

And also expensive presumably

Has there been any word about what services are prioritised for removal from Castlefield after the 23rd Jan meeting?

 

[Halifaxlad]

The Manchester Evening News ran a story on 31 January:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-hints-manchester-finally-overdue-17666055

This was based on an interview the Rail Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, gave to reporter Jennifer Williams.

To me the weasel worded ministerial quotes in the article do not necessarily amount to a hint that the Piccadilly/Oxford Road Package C scheme will be approved imminently:




It is clear that the DfT has been pushing Network Rail to investigate every conceivable cheaper infrastructure enhancement around Manchester in order to find an excuse for not funding Package C. So it seems to me that the DfT "solution", when eventually revealed, might well be some combination of these cheaper "other options", e.g. central turnback at Oxford Road, eastern turnback siding at Victoria, Manchester Airport platform lengthening, Ordsall Lane Jn grade separation, signalling enhancements in the Castlefield corridor, Salford Crescent remodelling.

The interview also covered service cuts to improve reliability:


So that seems to tie in with hints elsewhere that cuts are likely to be postponed until the December 2020 timetable change.

I did read summat in the Yorkshire Post that referenced some larger plan instead of 15&16 unfortunately I was unable to find it later. This maybe why NR have been looking at cheaper alternatives I suspect their real intentions will be unveiled with NPHR.

 

[GingerSte]

It looks like bringing Mayfield back into use to help relieve P13 and 14 at Piccadilly might be more difficult...

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/02/14/manchester-mayfield-phase-1-gets-green-light/

Manchester Mayfield phase 1 gets green light

Manchester City Council has granted planning to phase one of the landmark £1.4bn Mayfield scheme.

Mayfield scheme will be built on a 14-acre site near Manchester Piccadilly Station
A public-private partnership between developer U+I, the Council and Transport for Greater Manchester is masterminding the vast scheme.

Phase 1 will see the city’s first new park in more than 100 years, a nine-storey and 13-storey office buildings and a 581-space multi-storey car park opposite Manchester Piccadilly Station.

…

If anyone from NR, DfT, TfGM etc is watching...employ this person immediately!

Very nice of you to say so. Thanks!

 

[JonathanH]

It looks like bringing Mayfield back into use to help relieve P13 and 14 at Piccadilly might be more difficult...

I doubt there was ever a feasible scheme to bring Mayfield back into use - what would even run into it - 2tph from Alderley Edge / Crewe? Anything else would conflict.

 

[Mathew S]

I doubt there was ever a feasible scheme to bring Mayfield back into use - what would even run into it - 2tph from Alderley Edge / Crewe? Anything else would conflict.

Indeed there wasn't. The council and various local groups have been working on developing it like this for ages.

I suppose, arguably, it could have been used in some way to run airport shuttle services - some kind of moving walkway or other system from Piccadilly. But that's proper cloud cuckoo land tbh.

 

[furnessvale]

I doubt there was ever a feasible scheme to bring Mayfield back into use - what would even run into it - 2tph from Alderley Edge / Crewe? Anything else would conflict.

2tph from Buxton?
1tph Chester?
1tph Stoke?

 

[JonathanH]

2tph from Buxton?

Buxton services leave alternately from platforms 3 and 11 at Piccadilly. Mayfield is the other side of the lines into platforms 13 and 14 and would lead to conflicts without the construction of some sort of flyover.