• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It's not a question of anticipation, it's just that if you can choose whether the conflict on departure is with the Up or Down line, that helps avoid a lot of low level delays. Low level delays easily snowball.

Are you talking about if two signalled routes are available from P3 towards Deansgate? One via the "just a crossover" crossover (knocking out the P2 overlap thus a Down conflict), and another via the existing crossover used for exiting P5 (thus an Up conflict), and thus the signaller chooses the "best" (or "least worst").

Of course, the TPRs also need to be comprehensively revised - e.g. it's absolute lunacy that it's "OK" for the CLC stopper to depart plat 5 just 1 minute after an Up arrival in plat 4 from across the Pennines.

1 minute is perfectly OK (used reliably in many other places around the network), with a few caveats:
-Having the TPE not arrive late in the first place (if it's no longer queued behind quite so many other trains)
-Having prompt route-setting/Automatic Route Setting available so that the P5 route is set the very second it becomes available
-Having "on the ball" dispatchers consistently.

Like alot of things on Castlefield, it's the timetable *and* operation that need to come together to work properly, with focus on both sides of the question.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
12,232
Location
UK
Are you talking about if two signalled routes are available from P3 towards Deansgate? One via the "just a crossover" crossover (knocking out the P2 overlap thus a Down conflict), and another via the existing crossover used for exiting P5 (thus an Up conflict), and thus the signaller chooses the "best" (or "least worst").
Yes, apologies if that wasn't clear. Of course it's never quick or easy in this industry, but the "just a crossover" crossover would deliver a lot of the benefit of a proper Oxford Rd turnback, at a fraction of the cost. Naturally that depends on how much can be "grandfathered" when you touch just part of the layout!

1 minute is perfectly OK (used reliably in many other places around the network), with a few caveats:
-Having the TPE not arrive late in the first place (if it's no longer queued behind quite so many other trains)
-Having prompt route-setting/Automatic Route Setting available so that the P5 route is set the very second it becomes available
-Having "on the ball" dispatchers consistently.

Like alot of things on Castlefield, it's the timetable *and* operation that need to come together to work properly, with focus on both sides of the question.
The latter two are not issues in my experience. The former is an insoluble issue that will continue to exist for as long as you have trains coming from hundreds of miles away, crossing tens of flat junctions and throats along their way. No amount of Castlefield trimming will fix that. It's better not to have the conflict in the first place (c.f. the above solution).
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Just to clarify, then, does this mean you oppose the Oxford Road "proper" rebuild, which will surely have some similar issues?
Not at all. If you run the physical platform to "wrap around" the new bay, which would be between two sets of two platforms, the "overlap" is, I believe, reduced as the worst that can happen is the train smacks the concrete and not runs off down an embankment or into other track / trains.

The buffer stop solution on the current layout at Oxford Road, effectively only providing for one through platform each way with your so called "emergency" platform towards Liverpool, would be dreadful.

I've had a peek, and from what I can tell:

- Route a train from Deansgate into Platform 2 to terminate, trains can't arrive in Platform 1 from Manchester.
- Route a train from Deansgate into Platform 3 to terminate, fine; but no ability to allow something into Oxford Road towards Piccadilly when the train goes back.

The only realistic option therefore would be to rebuild massively. Anything we try to do short term is wasted money.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,793
Location
Mold, Clwyd
A bit off-topic, but the idea of a Liverpool to Cleethorpes (Operated by TPE, there is an error on the service pattern map) sounds exciting.
Takes us right back to MS&L/GC days, when it would have run from Liverpool/Manchester Central via the Reddish loop, Woodhead and Sheffield Vic.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Takes us right back to MS&L/GC days, when it would have run from Liverpool/Manchester Central via the Reddish loop, Woodhead and Sheffield Vic.

I just think it's about time we finally got a huge benefit to the north of that half-hourly Sheffield to Liverpool link set up if this goes ahead. Fantastic.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,310
Location
Greater Manchester
Even adding an additional crossover enabling turnback from 3 without conflicting with Up arrivals into 4 would help. I see no reason to eliminate the existing crossover at the west.
According to the SA, the usable length of Oxford Road P3 eastbound, with the current signalling, is only 137m (5*24m), reducing to 94m up to the mid platform signal (3*24m or 4*23m). P5 is 105m (4*24m). Westbound services can use the full 160m length of P3.

In Options B and C, these limits will constrain the off peak capacity of the CLC stopper (only 1tph), even if 195s with SDO are used. In Option C, the off peak capacity of the hourly Chat Moss stopper will likewise be constrained.

In the peaks, Option C requires 3tph to reverse at Oxford Road, which I guess might require use of both P5 and P3. The restriction on the length of the Southport service could be problematic. Hopefully the P3 arrivals could be timed to allow the preceding through train to clear the overlap towards Piccadilly, so that the 137m length can be used, e.g. for a 3+2-car double 195.
-Having prompt route-setting/Automatic Route Setting available so that the P5 route is set the very second it becomes available
From a talk last year by Christian Wyatt of the Manchester ROC, there is no Automatic Route Setting in the Castlefield corridor, nor any plan to add it. It is all down to the skill and experience of the signaller.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,262
Location
Airedale
Forgive me if I have missed the answer, but in Option C what is the Wigan-Chat Moss-Oxford Rd (-Hazel Grove) there for? I would have thought the Southport would be sufficient for Wigan-Castlefield traffic?

In option C I would prefer a half hourly TPE all day round the curve, because from a connectivity point of view an hourly peak service Vic-Ox Rd-Picc is pretty useless. Or hourly TPE, hourly Calder Valley all day if you prefer.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,380
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Forgive me if I have missed the answer, but in Option C what is the Wigan-Chat Moss-Oxford Rd (-Hazel Grove) there for? I would have thought the Southport would be sufficient for Wigan-Castlefield traffic?

The Southport is going to Vic. Or if that's a peak extra, it's to serve Patricroft and Eccles and I guess save Wigan from downgrading back to a very slow service.

In option C I would prefer a half hourly TPE all day round the curve, because from a connectivity point of view an hourly peak service Vic-Ox Rd-Picc is pretty useless. Or hourly TPE, hourly Calder Valley all day if you prefer.

The TPE is really a through service from Yorkshire and less about connections (other than to the Airport itself if you're actually going there). If you arrive at Vic at some random time you're better off not wasting time working out when it is and simply heading straight for the tram platform, even if that'll cost you a quid or two. If you're coming from the west, change at Bolton or Salford Crescent and avoid the issue entirely.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
I would prefer having enough capacity to run 3tph round the curve and Calder Valley users groups have been trying to get access to the south side of Manchester for over a decade. It was supposed to go to the Airport but it doesn't have to
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
16,134
Of course, the TPRs also need to be comprehensively revised - e.g. it's absolute lunacy that it's "OK" for the CLC stopper to depart plat 5 just 1 minute after an Up arrival in plat 4 from across the Pennines.
Standard value though.... and plenty of specific rules/locations where that is allowed.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
From a talk last year by Christian Wyatt of the Manchester ROC, there is no Automatic Route Setting in the Castlefield corridor, nor any plan to add it. It is all down to the skill and experience of the signaller.

No discredit to the signallers (who do a fantastic job day in, day out), but things like ARS need to be part of the solution too.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,681
Location
Northern England
In option C, on the Crewe - Stockport - Manchester route, is the plan to still have two trains per hour, but terminate them both at Alderley Edge rather than run one down to Crewe?

If not, I can't see people who live in Handforth, Cheadle Hulme, Holmes Chapel or Sandbach being very happy about their service being downgraded to hourly, neither do I think that users of Holmes Chapel, Sandbach, Chelford, Goostrey or Alderley Edge will be happy about the replacement of a relatively fast link to Manchester with a much slower one.

If so, I can't imagine the loss of direct connections to Crewe being a huge bother, as long as they are timed properly so that a same platform interchange at Alderley Edge is possible.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,380
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would prefer having enough capacity to run 3tph round the curve and Calder Valley users groups have been trying to get access to the south side of Manchester for over a decade. It was supposed to go to the Airport but it doesn't have to

Whose long-established Castlefield connection are you going to remove to give them that path?

4tph would be ideal, but it'd have to be the S-Bahn concept.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,310
Location
Greater Manchester
Forgive me if I have missed the answer, but in Option C what is the Wigan-Chat Moss-Oxford Rd (-Hazel Grove) there for? I would have thought the Southport would be sufficient for Wigan-Castlefield traffic?
The peak only Wigan NW - Hazel Grove via Chat Moss is intended to retain a fast electric service between Wigan NW and Piccadilly, with the Cumbria services rerouted via Bolton. Also it replaces the Blackpool - Hazel Grove south of Piccadilly.

The peak only Southport - Oxford Road via Wigan Wallgate and Atherton is intended to retain a direct service between Southport and Oxford Road, with the Alderley Edge cut back to Piccadilly, and maintain 3tph on the Atherton line.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
The peak only Wigan NW - Hazel Grove via Chat Moss is intended to retain a fast electric service between Wigan NW and Piccadilly, with the Cumbria services rerouted via Bolton. Also it replaces the Blackpool - Hazel Grove south of Piccadilly.

The peak only Southport - Oxford Road via Wigan Wallgate and Atherton is intended to retain a direct service between Southport and Oxford Road, with the Alderley Edge cut back to Piccadilly, and maintain 3tph on the Atherton line.
I understand it, but don't love it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,380
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Talking of that Southport, has there ever been a timetabled service from the Atherton Line to Castlefield before? Traditionally it was always Bolton for Picc and Atherton for Vic. I don't think there has?

(I don't count engineering works, even pre-planned ones)
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,310
Location
Greater Manchester
In option C, on the Crewe - Stockport - Manchester route, is the plan to still have two trains per hour, but terminate them both at Alderley Edge rather than run one down to Crewe?
Yes
If so, I can't imagine the loss of direct connections to Crewe being a huge bother, as long as they are timed properly so that a same platform interchange at Alderley Edge is possible.
Changing at Wilmslow might be a better option, because the fast services from Piccadilly and Stockport (Avanti and TfW) call there.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,681
Location
Northern England
Changing at Wilmslow might be a better option, because the fast services from Piccadilly and Stockport (Avanti and TfW) call there.
Indeed, though passengers with e.g. heavy luggage, if they have a long connection at Crewe, might prefer to spend a little longer on the train (difference is only 5-10 mins) and have the convenience of not having to change platform.

Of course, the options are welcome.

Edit: Ignore me - that's only a factor if you are coming down from the airport, not from Stockport.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Talking of that Southport, has there ever been a timetabled service from the Atherton Line to Castlefield before? Traditionally it was always Bolton for Picc and Atherton for Vic. I don't think there has?

(I don't count engineering works, even pre-planned ones)

Not to my knowledge, only if Victoria is closed, or the Bolton route is closed. Even things like the summer Saturday Blackpool services originated from Victoria/Oldham/Rochdale.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
1,731
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
First of all I am looking at this from the viewpoint of a traveller into the NW from Yorkshire. A quick look back: I started using Transpennine services in around 1980, 1 tph via Huddersfield, more stops than today, 6 or 7 carriages, loco hauled, Leeds Manchester took around an hour from memory. You ended up in Man Vic which as a majority of onward connections left from Man Pic was useless. You did have an option to change at Staylbridge. A major change to the service occured in the mid 80's, 3 car 158's, 3 or 4 per hour via Guide Bridge into Piccadilly, Leeds - Manchester in about 55mins. Arrival into Pic was a game changer, saving a good 30 mins on journeys involving an onward connection. Liverpool trains via CLC lines, serving places like Warrington, Liv Sth Parkway. Airport services came on line in this period as well. The service was OK, I used it once or twice a week for 20 years, the odd disruption, but on the whole acceptable. This pattern persisted until 2014 ish when they tried to shoehorn extra transpennine services in. That was mistake 1, instead of running more trains run longer trains. Then fast forward to 2018 and the re-routing of services back to Victoria, a backwards step from the point of view of Yorkshire travellers. No through ticketing on Metrolink. Too many trains leading to a hopelessly unreliable service, existing connections broken, e.g. York - Warrington goes from through train to a change and because everyone wants Oxford Road or Piccadilly airport trains from York are even more rammed than pre 2018. For a lot of journeys involving a change in Manchester we are back to 1980 journey times or worse end to end, and with less reliability.

My solution would be quite simple for Transpennine North, run everything except one train per hour into Piccadilly low numbered platorms via Guide Bridge and terminate them there. Run Pic - Airport as a an almost self contained route, ideally with dedicated platforms, with a mix of stoppers and fast trains, dedicated stock with plenty of luggage space. Send one TPE train per hour via Victoria to Liverpool to maintain Liverpool connection. This would remove 2 tph from Castlefield, and becuase you terminate in Piccadilly onward journeys are easier, with good signage walking route to 'Airport shuttle' at Piccadilly would be easy. Transpennine South would also terminate at Piccadilly. Manchester - Scotland services would still need to terminate at the airport or somewhere else owing to a lack of terminating platforms for this route at Manchester. If you want to use the Ordsal chord use it for short distance local services. The 1 tph North Wales service used to manage to terminate at Pic, I dont know how much operating difficulty it caused. Sheffield - Liverpool remains 1 tph but with longest trains major stops can accomodate, remove minor stops on this service, so that towards Liverpool it only stops at Warrington, Widnes maybe, and Liv Sth Parkway

Longer term is there space for a Platform 0 at Manchester, and maybe even a '-1', how easy would this be?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,380
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Longer term is there space for a Platform 0 at Manchester, and maybe even a '-1', how easy would this be?

There is but HS2 platforms will if I recall be going there in what is presently a car park and stack of Network Rail containers. Were HS2 cancelled it might make sense to build them.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,310
Location
Greater Manchester
Traditionally it was always Bolton for Picc and Atherton for Vic.
If it were the other way around, the junction conflicts around Salford Crescent could be reduced somewhat, since both platforms are bi-directional.

E.g. an Atherton service from the Windsor Link could depart Salford Crescent at the same time as a Bolton service from Victoria, with cross platform interchange between them (don't know if this is planned for the Option C Oxford Road - Southport).
 

Metrolink

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2021
Messages
166
Location
Manchester
If it were the other way around, the junction conflicts around Salford Crescent could be reduced somewhat, since both platforms are bi-directional
Yes, but what about Cumbria services via Bolton?

If this would be totally eradicated than there would be more pressure on the Chat Moss line.
 

kraiken

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2009
Messages
22
Could you 'double deck' them with HS2 platforms above or below extention to existing platforms.
That is one scenario that is hopefully under serious consideration as part of NPR - but that's getting off-topic as we are talking interim measures to solve the issue with pre-COVID passenger numbers on the Castlefield corridor. Perhaps modelling realistic platform dwell times needs to be part of any timetable re-casting. If the May 2018 fiasco had been subject to a public inquiry we might be in a better position to assess what went wrong.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
There is but HS2 platforms will if I recall be going there in what is presently a car park and stack of Network Rail containers. Were HS2 cancelled it might make sense to build them.
Or rebuild Mayfield, have the Airport services go there and link it via 13 & 14. The only problem is it's up for redevelopment.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
If it were the other way around, the junction conflicts around Salford Crescent could be reduced somewhat, since both platforms are bi-directional.

E.g. an Atherton service from the Windsor Link could depart Salford Crescent at the same time as a Bolton service from Victoria, with cross platform interchange between them (don't know if this is planned for the Option C Oxford Road - Southport).

Junction conflict would not be reduced; you'd solve some and introduce others.

In your e.g. you'd gain the ability to operate two southbound service simultaneously, but lose the ability to run one northbound and one southbound simultaneously.

So, to send a southbound Atherton train towards Piccadilly via Platform 2, you'd need at least an 8 or so minute gap between *any* train from Victoria towards Bolton (whilst the ex-Atherton occupies then clears the "northbound" platform. Whereas with Atherton trains towards Victoria, you only need about a 4 minute gap in Bolton trains, which is simply the junction margins at Windsor Bridge North.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,380
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Two islands there would be good, but there's a conflict in needs - you'd want paired by north/south for passenger convenience, but paired by Vic or Picc would be operationally easier.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
There's also the fact that the passenger flow from Bolton towards Castlefield is pretty significant.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,442
Location
Bolton
I'm surprised that the consultation tries to suggest that Flixton gains the benefit of an hourly service in Option C, given it already has one and has done for quite some time...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top