Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[Bletchleyite]

I am unclear which service would take over the hourly calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley, unless Network Rail can find a path for the Kirkby service to continue to Victoria, without conflicting with the TfW.

The Clitheroe does that, doesn't it? Unless this proposal terminates it at Bolton.

 

[Glenn1969]

At the moment these stations are mainly served by the Southport to Stalybridge service

 

[Mathew S]

The Clitheroe does that, doesn't it? Unless this proposal terminates it at Bolton.

I think giving them to the Clitheroe is probably the least worst option.

It occurs to me that overcrowding on the Barrow/Windermeres in the peaks is going to be even more of an issue than it already is, if this is what happens. I can't help wondering whether there's scope for running them as 5 or 6 cars. I'm not familiar with the Furness line stations, but certainly Preston, Wigan, Ox Road and Picc could accommodate it.

 

[JonathanH]

It occurs to me that overcrowding on the Barrow/Windermeres in the peaks is going to be even more of an issue than it already is, if this is what happens. I can't help wondering whether there's scope for running them as 5 or 6 cars. I'm not familiar with the Furness line stations, but certainly Preston, Wigan, Ox Road and Picc could accommodate it.

Isn't the (forum) idea to remove them south of Lancaster and run all Blackpool to Hazel Grove / Manchester Airport / Manchester Victoria as 6-car?

Cumbria services can't run pairs of units (in the full timetable) because they have to share a platform with something else at the Airport. The Blackpool is only there a short time and gets a platform to itself.

 

[Mathew S]

Isn't the idea to remove them south of Lancaster and run all Blackpool to Hazel Grove / Manchester Airport / Manchester Victoria as 6-car?

Others have said not. If that did happen, an alternative would need to be found anyway because Man Picc - Wigan is an overcrowded route and removing both the Barrow and Southport services would remove all direct services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think giving them to the Clitheroe is probably the least worst option.

It has done them in the past, certainly the pre-1998 timetable. I thought it still did but stand corrected.

As an alternative it might be better putting them onto an EMU service such as the Blackpool-Victoria, to reduce lost time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It occurs to me that overcrowding on the Barrow/Windermeres in the peaks is going to be even more of an issue than it already is, if this is what happens. I can't help wondering whether there's scope for running them as 5 or 6 cars. I'm not familiar with the Furness line stations, but certainly Preston, Wigan, Ox Road and Picc could accommodate it.

I've proposed before running hourly to both Barrow and Windermere splitting/joining at Lancaster (which would mean at least 4 coaches), though I recall there may be pathing issues with this. The Furness Line can definitely do 4x23m, FWIW, but I think not 5 or 6.

 

[Greybeard33]

It has done them in the past, certainly the pre-1998 timetable. I thought it still did but stand corrected.

As an alternative it might be better putting them onto an EMU service such as the Blackpool-Victoria, to reduce lost time.

Eastbound the Clitheroe and Blackburn services both need to run fast from Bolton to Salford Crescent, to avoid delaying following services. The Clitheroe could possibly make the calls westbound, as it currently precedes the Stalybridge to Southport that would be retimed.

The Blackpool - Victoria needs to run fast both ways. But possibly the Hazel Grove service could make the eastbound calls, because it currently precedes the Stalybridge.

Alternatively, with the improved performance of 331s/323s over the current 319 timings, maybe each of the three EMU services could fit in a call at one of the three stations?

 

[Greybeard33]

Cumbria services can't run pairs of units (in the full timetable) because they have to share a platform with something else at the Airport.

The Cumbria service currently shares an Airport platform with the TfW N Wales service. If the latter were diverted to Stalybridge, the Cumbria could become a 5- or 6-car formation, to improve capacity between Wigan and Manchester.

Even now, the Cumbria service gets a platform to itself in the peaks, when the N Wales service terminates at Piccadilly.

 

[158756]

As I understand it, the current Atherton line stopper would be diverted to go to Southport instead of Kirkby, in place of the current Stalybridge to Southport via Bolton. The Southport to Alderley Edge via Bolton would be diverted to go to Stalybridge via Bolton and Victoria instead, removing a service from the Castlefield corridor and replacing the current Victoria to Stalybridge shuttle (or looking at it another way, the current Southport to Stalybridge would be shifted in time by about half an hour). The Kirkby service would be retimed and go to Bolton in the path of the current Southport to Stalybridge, presumably terminating in Bolton P5. The TfW N Wales to Airport would be diverted to go to Stalybridge via Victoria, taking the path of the current Southport to Stalybridge (the timings appear to match). This would remove a second service from the corridor.

I am unclear which service would take over the hourly calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley, unless Network Rail can find a path for the Kirkby service to continue to Victoria, without conflicting with the TfW.

So as well as Kirkby losing direct trains to Manchester, Westhoughton's direct service reduces to 1tph and Salford Crescent to Oxford Road/Piccadilly (the supposedly high quality connection making direct services to Piccadilly unnecessary) reduces to 2tph?

 

[Greybeard33]

So as well as Kirkby losing direct trains to Manchester, Westhoughton's direct service reduces to 1tph and Salford Crescent to Oxford Road/Piccadilly (the supposedly high quality connection making direct services to Piccadilly unnecessary) reduces to 2tph?

Correct. Although Westhoughton to Victoria would become 5 minutes faster than now, and the maximum time between services from Salford Crescent to Piccadilly would remain at 30 minutes, as now. Plus the services might get to Piccadilly on time more often than they do now.

Until the Central Manchester infrastructure is improved, it is not possible to have so many direct services from everywhere to everywhere, unless we are willing to put up with on-going delays and disruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Correct. Although Westhoughton to Victoria would become 5 minutes faster than now, and the maximum time between services from Salford Crescent to Piccadilly would remain at 30 minutes, as now. Plus the services might get to Piccadilly on time more often than they do now.

Which is the whole point - sacrifice some services so the Castlefield line (and Victoria) can operate reliably.

This is still needed even if 15/16 and the other Castlefield works are announced tomorrow - they will take years to construct.

 

[Mathew S]

The Cumbria service currently shares an Airport platform with the TfW N Wales service. If the latter were diverted to Stalybridge, the Cumbria could become a 5- or 6-car formation, to improve capacity between Wigan and Manchester.

Even now, the Cumbria service gets a platform to itself in the peaks, when the N Wales service terminates at Piccadilly.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise, to be honest.

 

[Greybeard33]

That sounds like a reasonable compromise, to be honest.

I think the post#270 proposals bear the hallmarks of a genuine leak from the secret Rail North Partnership deliberations, because they appear to have had input from professional timetable planners. They are carefully calibrated to fit in the existing infrastructure and minimise the changes to the existing timetable, while inconveniencing the minimum number of passengers. Unlike many of the amateur ideas in this forum, which would involve new infrastructure and/or a major timetable recast right across the North, taking years to plan and implement.

Of course, there are probably other proposals under consideration, so we will have to wait and see what is eventually announced.

 

[Mathew S]

I think the post#270 proposals bear the hallmarks of a genuine leak from the secret Rail North Partnership deliberations, because they appear to have had input from professional timetable planners. They are carefully calibrated to fit in the existing infrastructure and minimise the changes to the existing timetable, while inconveniencing the minimum number of passengers. Unlike many of the amateur ideas in this forum, which would involve new infrastructure and/or a major timetable recast right across the North, taking years to plan and implement.

Of course, there are probably other proposals under consideration, so we will have to wait and see what is eventually announced.

Yeah, I agree. It's also partially reusing a service pattern that's existed previously during the Farnsworth tunnel works, so it's at least semi-proven. It's a conundrum for me personally to figure out, if it does go ahead, in terms of how I commute Wigan/Pemberton - Manchester (the answer may have to be by car, sadly) but we'll see.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the post#270 proposals bear the hallmarks of a genuine leak from the secret Rail North Partnership deliberations, because they appear to have had input from professional timetable planners. They are carefully calibrated to fit in the existing infrastructure and minimise the changes to the existing timetable, while inconveniencing the minimum number of passengers. Unlike many of the amateur ideas in this forum, which would involve new infrastructure and/or a major timetable recast right across the North, taking years to plan and implement.

Of course, there are probably other proposals under consideration, so we will have to wait and see what is eventually announced.

I'm afraid that new infrastructure is needed, like it or not. Northern polititians mustn't let Westminster/Whitehall off the hook.

 

[158756]

Correct. Although Westhoughton to Victoria would become 5 minutes faster than now, and the maximum time between services from Salford Crescent to Piccadilly would remain at 30 minutes, as now. Plus the services might get to Piccadilly on time more often than they do now.

Until the Central Manchester infrastructure is improved, it is not possible to have so many direct services from everywhere to everywhere, unless we are willing to put up with on-going delays and disruption.

Well, Westhoughton to Victoria gets slightly faster, Westhoughton to Manchester in general doesn't. A 30 minute gap in scheduled services at Salford Crescent is just poor, even if it does currently exist in the half hour the Southport service doesn't run.

All the cuts I listed are not just cuts compared to the current service, but cuts compared to the service offered at the end of the no growth franchise. Evidently this is the future of rail travel - massive investment, fewer services, fewer passengers. To be honest, if I were the Minister for Transport, I'd want a very good explanation of why I should even consider spending a single penny more on rail infrastructure.

I'm afraid that new infrastructure is needed, like it or not. Northern polititians mustn't let Westminster/Whitehall off the hook.

And who's going to demonstrate the benefits, or value for money of such infrastructure, or even how many trains can currently fit on the railway? I'm sure Whitehall heard all about how fantastic these politicians thought it was when they were throwing money at electrification, the Ordsall Chord, TPE/Northern's new trains, Network Rail's planning on undeliverable schemes, playing fantasy trains with HS3/NPR etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All the cuts I listed are not just cuts compared to the current service, but cuts compared to the service offered at the end of the no growth franchise. Evidently this is the future of rail travel - massive investment, fewer services, fewer passengers. To be honest, if I were the Minister for Transport, I'd want a very good explanation of why I should even consider spending a single penny more on rail infrastructure.

I would certainly want a very good explanation as to why the Ordsall Chord was built, as it seems to be a substantial part of the cause of these problems. That said, the service hasn't been truly reliable since the pre-1998 timetable.

 

[158756]

I would certainly want a very good explanation as to why the Ordsall Chord was built, as it seems to be a substantial part of the cause of these problems. That said, the service hasn't been truly reliable since the pre-1998 timetable.

Aside from the Castlefield problems, the capacity benefit of the Ordsall Chord was supposed to be allowing more trains into Piccadilly from the south - where are they - apparently it turns out that's not possible. So it looks very much like the case was built at best on sheer incompetence on the part of the Network Rail/consultants/whoever. Then of course you have to consider that just before building the Ordsall Chord and shifting TPE services to Victoria, the same people spent money at Stalybridge making journeys by that route slower. You could make a comedy of it.

 

[yorksrob]

I would certainly want a very good explanation as to why the Ordsall Chord was built, as it seems to be a substantial part of the cause of these problems. That said, the service hasn't been truly reliable since the pre-1998 timetable.

Aside from the Castlefield problems, the capacity benefit of the Ordsall Chord was supposed to be allowing more trains into Piccadilly from the south - where are they - apparently it turns out that's not possible. So it looks very much like the case was built at best on sheer incompetence on the part of the Network Rail/consultants/whoever. Then of course you have to consider that just before building the Ordsall Chord and shifting TPE services to Victoria, the same people spent money at Stalybridge making journeys by that route slower. You could make a comedy of it.

Well, the Ordsall Chord was only ever half of the project. If you build half a project then pull the plug, you can't expect to fit more trains on it.

I was always under the impression that the chord was to provide new travel opportunities from Bradford and the Calder valley to the Airport anyway, not take TPE passengers on a magical mystery tour around Manchester. 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.

Electrification is another one. It should be being used to provide longer trains and move onto the next line. Run 8 carriages between Liverpool and Manchester and Preston and Manchester. Instead, we seem to be replacing perfectly good four carriage 318's with the next lot of stock.

 

[JonathanH]

Electrification is another one. It should be being used to provide longer trains and move onto the next line. Run 8 carriages between Liverpool and Manchester and Preston and Manchester. Instead, we seem to be replacing perfectly good four carriage 318's with the next lot of stock.

It is being used to provide longer stock - 6 car 331s replacing 4-car 319s. Clearly at the moment there are 3-car 331s replacing 4-car 319s but that isn't the end point. 6-car 331s will fit places hypothetical 8-car 319s won't.

 

[yorksrob]

It is being used to provide longer stock - 6 car 331s replacing 4-car 319s. Clearly at the moment there are 3-car 331s replacing 4-car 319s but that isn't the end point. 6-car 331s will fit places hypothetical 8-car 319s won't.

If that is the end point, then great. But they need to move on to the next line.

 

[158756]

Well, the Ordsall Chord was only ever half of the project. If you build half a project then pull the plug, you can't expect to fit more trains on it.

I was always under the impression that the chord was to provide new travel opportunities from Bradford and the Calder valley to the Airport anyway, not take TPE passengers on a magical mystery tour around Manchester. 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.
.

Calder Valley to the Airport was only a small part of it, and it would appear by it's non-existence the least important bit to the railway and stakeholders. It also gives the Picc -Vic link Manchester had wanted for decades (but IMO the value of that is significantly reduced by the low frequency of trains using it).

If the Piccadilly throat movements had to go the alternatives for TPE would seem to be either a) split services between Piccadilly and Victoria, with no connecting heavy rail link, b) abandon Piccadilly and the Airport (but they can't use the bays at Victoria either) or c) abandon Liverpool.

b) and c) have obvious problems. The big problem with a), as you propose, is ending the 'turn-up-and-go' service between Manchester and Leeds, replacing it with a guessing game between the two stations and hour-long gaps from a single cancellation. I can't remember which reports it was, but at the time the impression I got was that this was highly valued, and this is essentially the core service in any fantasy 'HS3' proposals. This problem disappears completely if we accept that the railway is not and never will be more than a rounding error in the North, and instead direct investment to the M62.

 

[Bletchleyite]

b) and c) have obvious problems. The big problem with a), as you propose, is ending the 'turn-up-and-go' service between Manchester and Leeds, replacing it with a guessing game between the two stations and hour-long gaps from a single cancellation

That this is even a consideration shows just how bad things have got. It'd be fine if we stopped the trains getting cancelled quite so often. I can't recall the last time I experienced, for example, a cancelled VT/Avanti WC service, and prior to the timetable stuff-up LM/LNR services very rarely got cancelled, too, so it can be done. That means improving resilience and simplifying crew and unit diagrams - and so we're straight back to cutting frequencies to a timetable that can be operated reliably.

 

[yorksrob]

Calder Valley to the Airport was only a small part of it, and it would appear by it's non-existence the least important bit to the railway and stakeholders. It also gives the Picc -Vic link Manchester had wanted for decades (but IMO the value of that is significantly reduced by the low frequency of trains using it).

If the Piccadilly throat movements had to go the alternatives for TPE would seem to be either a) split services between Piccadilly and Victoria, with no connecting heavy rail link, b) abandon Piccadilly and the Airport (but they can't use the bays at Victoria either) or c) abandon Liverpool.

b) and c) have obvious problems. The big problem with a), as you propose, is ending the 'turn-up-and-go' service between Manchester and Leeds, replacing it with a guessing game between the two stations and hour-long gaps from a single cancellation. I can't remember which reports it was, but at the time the impression I got was that this was highly valued, and this is essentially the core service in any fantasy 'HS3' proposals. This problem disappears completely if we accept that the railway is not and never will be more than a rounding error in the North, and instead direct investment to the M62.

Admittedly it's not ideal to have two different stations serving the core, however I'm not convinced this is the be all and end all, particularly given the use of journey planners etc to check trains. And the whole idea is to reduce cancellations, so three reliable trains an hour from one station and two from the other would still be a good service.

 

[158756]

That this is even a consideration shows just how bad things have got. It'd be fine if we stopped the trains getting cancelled quite so often. I can't recall the last time I experienced, for example, a cancelled VT/Avanti WC service, and prior to the timetable stuff-up LM/LNR services very rarely got cancelled, too, so it can be done. That means improving resilience and simplifying crew and unit diagrams - and so we're straight back to cutting frequencies to a timetable that can be operated reliably.

It's how most occasional travellers think about the railway, even if they are completely oblivious to recent problems. Like how changing trains in Britain is inherently unreliable and to be avoided if at all possible. Cutting back frequencies too much brings it's own problems - the Transpennine route is not fast, if you want to get to Leeds quickly arriving at Victoria to find everything is running to time but the next train is due in 29 minutes is a very bad start. Maybe most passengers don't just turn up at the station and get the next train now, 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.

 

[Greybeard33]

Admittedly it's not ideal to have two different stations serving the core, however I'm not convinced this is the be all and end all, particularly given the use of journey planners etc to check trains. And the whole idea is to reduce cancellations, so three reliable trains an hour from one station and two from the other would still be a good service.

The last time you floated this idea it drew a succinct response from someone who knows what they are talking about:

Also TPE - airport services need to revert to reversing via Piccadilly.

Incredibly unlikely.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

ISTM that many posters in this thread, and in the other related threads, have lost sight of how we got here in the first place. No doubt that the current timetable has proved to be unworkable but that is due to failings in the "active" parts of the industry. I have seen no suggestion that the timetable itself is unfeasible though it has proven to be (over)ambitious. So the blame for the chaos lies not with the timetable planners but with those who are supposed to deliver it, and that means the TOCs, especially Northern and TPE, and also Network Rail and the train manufacturers, primarily CAF, for failing to deliver their outputs.

So while it is unfortunately necessary to make some reductions in the service offered these should only be needed for a relatively short period, a year perhaps. In the meantime the manufacturers need to get the new trains into reliable service and the TOCs need to get a proper grip of their staffing issues. Given the problems with completing all the training required that will mean continuing to increase the numbers of traincrew on the payroll with the DfT being told to keep their noses out at least until service delivery has been stabilised. And in the meantime stock and crew diagrams need to be made more robust to prevent small delays from snowballing.

In short there should be no need for some of the drastic cuts in connectivity that some have suggested, indeed I think most of them are completely unacceptable. And all stakeholders need to keep the pressure on the Dft to get on with the other projects so necessary to improve the network across the north, not just P15/16 but also TRU, Hope Valley capacity and Leeds eastern approaches to mention perhaps the most pressing. Oh and the Class 769 needs to either be made to work in short order or binned.

 

[daodao]

…. So the blame for the chaos lies not with the timetable planners but with those who are supposed to deliver it......

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.

…. And all stakeholders need to keep the pressure on the Dft to get on with the other projects so necessary to improve the network across the north,......

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.

 

[yorksrob]

The last time you floated this idea it drew a succinct response from someone who knows what they are talking about:

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

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. I still believe this should be a priority ahead of whatever Shangri-la high speed scheme the Government has picked out of its bottom to be completed at some unspecified time in the distant future.