Long-term solutions for the Manchester bottleneck post-HS2.

[GJMarshy]

No, they're not going to decide not to go on holiday, but they are going to decide to drive to the airport instead.

And none of this answers my original question, which was how does making people change at Piccadilly contribute to solving the bottleneck when the trains to get people to Piccadilly will still have to go through the bottleneck?

It will no longer be a bottleneck, as no services from Chat Moss or the Windsor Link (both flat junctions) would feed into it. There would only be one flat junction toward Warrington, with all other services passing over the chord with a cohesive stopping-pattern. (no more mixed-traffic that generates delays & limits capacity)

 

[HSTEd]

No, they're not going to decide not to go on holiday, but they are going to decide to drive to the airport instead.

And none of this answers my original question, which was how does making people change at Piccadilly contribute to solving the bottleneck when the trains to get people to Piccadilly will still have to go through the bottleneck?

If trains don't have to get to the airport you can essentially break Piccadilly up into a series of separate stations that just happen to be in the same building.

(Almost) all crossing moves can be eliminated and every destination group can have its own platforms.

 

[sprunt]

If trains don't have to get to the airport you can essentially break Piccadilly up into a series of separate stations that just happen to be in the same building.

(Almost) all crossing moves can be eliminated and every destination group can have its own platforms.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I thought the problem (and what's referred to as the bottleneck) was primarily the number of trains coming through platforms 13/14? And that the airport trains people want to eliminate are those coming from the west?

 

[GJMarshy]

Apologies if in earlier posts I wasn't so clear! But under this arrangement all but 4 of the 12tph through Castlefield would come from the north by using the Ordsall chord, providing connections to northern lines by providing frequent, direct airport connections to Salford Central and Victoria. This eliminates the Chat Moss & Windsor Link junctions, making the whole thing much more manageable, with all services running at regular intervals (all stop through Castlefield & styal)

This also helps to boost patronage on the unreliable and underserved Styal Line which has over 110,000 residents within walking distance of it, helping reduce car-dependancy, thereby reducing congestion and air pollution in densely populated South Manchester, as well as reducing overcrowding on parallel, slower bus routes. A nice added bonus!

View attachment Manchester Network Reshuffle.png

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I thought the problem (and what's referred to as the bottleneck) was primarily the number of trains coming through platforms 13/14? And that the airport trains people want to eliminate are those coming from the west?

13/14s travails are the immediate cause for the problem, but are considerably worsened by the mess of crossing moves and everything else in the Manchester area.

If we just had 13/14 in isolation it could likely handle more than it does now reliably.
Indeed if we were attempting to eliminate crossing moves the Styal/Airport line would likely monopolise platform 13/14

 

[Halifaxlad]

Following on: this is what I would spend some of the 11 billion on

Liverpool - Manchester – Google My Maps

Liverpool - Manchester

www.google.com

 

[HSTEd]

Following on: this is what I would spend some of the 11 billion on

Liverpool - Manchester – Google My Maps

Liverpool - Manchester

www.google.com

I don't think you have any chance of getting all that for £11bn.

That's a lot of new track and an underground station in Manchester will not be cheap .

EDIT;

In south Manchester, two troublesome places I can see are immediately north of the Styal Line divergence and beteen Stockport and Cheadle Hulme.

The area north of the Styal Line could do with 6tracks instead of 4 to allow any crossing moves there to be eliminated, and the section between the South End of Stockport and Cheadle Hulme could really do with 4 instead of 2 so the via Stoke and via Crewe lines could operate independently.

You might be able to squeeze six lines onto the existing four track formation but you'd probably need slab track (to reduce tolerances) and a derogation on walkway access for a few hundred metres to avoid expensive and time consuming land take.
Cheadle Hulme looks far less hemmed in but its also close to a mile, or double the Styal section, from the end of the quad track to the divergence.

Beyond those two problems you'd probably want a flyover south of stockport so the hazel grove line doesn't have to cross the newly separate via Stoke line on the flat.

 

[The Planner]

In south Manchester, two troublesome places I can see are immediately north of the Styal Line divergence and beteen Stockport and Cheadle Hulme.

The area north of the Styal Line could do with 6tracks instead of 4 to allow any crossing moves there to be eliminated, and the section between the South End of Stockport and Cheadle Hulme could really do with 4 instead of 2 so the via Stoke and via Crewe lines could operate independently.

You might be able to squeeze six lines onto the existing four track formation but you'd probably need slab track (to reduce tolerances) and a derogation on walkway access for a few hundred metres to avoid expensive and time consuming land take.
Cheadle Hulme looks far less hemmed in but its also close to a mile, or double the Styal section, from the end of the quad track to the divergence.

Beyond those two problems you'd probably want a flyover south of stockport so the hazel grove line doesn't have to cross the newly separate via Stoke line on the flat.

Slade Lane would get grade separated. You would also need to swap the line pairings at Adswood Road as well as its DS DF UF US, and if you did that, you would question if Slade Lane needed doing. Swapping the pairings would trigger the Stockport area re-signaling.

 

[class26]

Following on: this is what I would spend some of the 11 billion on

Liverpool - Manchester – Google My Maps

Liverpool - Manchester

www.google.com

Sorry to be pedantic but wasn`t it 12 billion?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Sorry to be pedantic but wasn`t it 12 billion?

It might be...its in the billions anyway

 

[Bantamzen]

Trust me I have! And I fully understand that perspective.

The issue though is whilst it does have high employment, it isn't enough to justify skewing the entire northern rail network so suit it. The council seemingly believe it's a cash-cow for the region, but that comes for from a fear of not realising sunken-costs that have been spent on it. So far the Airport City business has failed to take off, since especially post-covid businesses prefer central locations in city centres where there's a wider pool of talent and local amenities. Office parks are a bit old-hat nowadays.

It's probably time the council admitted continuing to spend money on linking it to everywhere directly will not increase Greater Manchester's GDP, or see significant returns on the investment MCC and others put into it. Expand and upgrade the terminals fine, but business wise, that's focussed in the centre now. The sunken-cost fallacy aught to be recognised in this respect and priorities shifted accordingly.

Well the bad news for you is that Manchester Airport will only get busier, and more people will look at rail as an option to get their, especially if airport advances continue to be offered. Therefore TOCs, the airport and local politicians won't be banging your drum. Maybe if you had a quiet word with Doncaster City Council, I'm sure they would be enthusiastic at the idea of shipping Manchester's air traffic eastwards...

As for South Manchester, if only there were some alternative forum of high density transport network that could be extended to soak up some of the traffic...

 

[cle]

Platforms 1-4 are very heavily used. I've sat on a few trains waiting outside of Piccadilly for platform space coming from Glossop/Huddersfield/Marple. Platforms 9/10/11/12 can't be used by many services due to them all being accessed by the same single track so the lower numbered platforms get far more usage. A platform zero would provide more reliability, less stacking of trains, and potentially allow an additional Glossop or Stalybridge service.

But this isn't really the regional-level/Castlefield problem. I agree those platforms are more used - even with less TPE reversals, terminators and so on - but that's more about metro frequency.

Put that line (Glossop/Hadfield) onto Metrolink @ the standard 5tph - endure the usual grumbles and exceptionalism but then it will thrive - and I think we are sorted on platforms 1-4.

But the cascade effect would be more capacity out to Stalybridge, or towards Marple/Stockport - and a revived hub at Guide Bridge.

 

[HSTEd]

But this isn't really the regional-level/Castlefield problem. I agree those platforms are more used - even with less TPE reversals, terminators and so on - but that's more about metro frequency.

Put that line (Glossop/Hadfield) onto Metrolink @ the standard 5tph - endure the usual grumbles and exceptionalism but then it will thrive - and I think we are sorted on platforms 1-4.

But the cascade effect would be more capacity out to Stalybridge, or towards Marple/Stockport - and a revived hub at Guide Bridge.

You probably still want extra low numbered platforms as part of a rebuild to get 400m platforms. You will likely have to sacrifice 10-12

 

[GJMarshy]

I can see some benefit in having extra terminating capacity at Piccadilly and I doubt many would say there’s no merit in doing so.

It does assume however that hadfield/marple stay on the national rail network as opposed to metrolink conversion, which seems increasingly likely given the spare through-running capacity at Piccadilly tram stop.

Thing is, apart from some terminating capacity for TPE services there’s still little benefit in relieving east-west capacity. 400m platforms are also out of the equation now post-HS2. It’ll be 260m tops if that becomes a likely scenario.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Slade Lane would get grade separated. You would also need to swap the line pairings at Adswood Road as well as its DS DF UF US, and if you did that, you would question if Slade Lane needed doing. Swapping the pairings would trigger the Stockport area re-signaling.

A well-thought posting response with good detail.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Thing is, apart from some terminating capacity for TPE services there’s still little benefit in relieving east-west capacity. 400m platforms are also out of the equation now post-HS2. It’ll be 260m tops if that becomes a likely scenario.

I reckon you could get 2 400m terminating platforms at Pic if you built the viaduct out slightly Eastwards to accomodate track curvature needed for straight platforms.

Ideallly you would do away with having splitting and jointing services on HS2 altogether and go with something more reasonable that can be accomodated at more stations with little modification.

I will refrain from stating my prefered length to stop this discussion heading too far off topic but 400m lomg services are just plain silly anyway!

 

[HSTEd]

Thing is, apart from some terminating capacity for TPE services there’s still little benefit in relieving east-west capacity. 400m platforms are also out of the equation now post-HS2. It’ll be 260m tops if that becomes a likely scenario.

Are they?
If there are 400m platforms at Piccadilly there is a little reason trains that long cannot be run, and it would provide buckets of additional capacity.
SDO would be used at intermediate stations.

They, combined with 400m trains to Birmingham would also relieve a lot of traffic from the stockport corridor and make the other problems we face rather more tractable.

 

[Halifaxlad]

SDO would be used at intermediate stations.

Lets not complicate an overly complicated network with more complications!

Keep it short and simple and on the platform!

 

[The Ham]

Lets not complicate an overly complicated network with more complications!

Keep it short and simple and on the platform!

SWR regularly run 12 coach trains to multiple stations which can't take than number of coaches. As long as there's good signage on the trains as to which coach is which and a reasonable number of announcements then there doesn't seem to be an issue with people trying to get on/off at the wrong location.

Especially given that a 400m train would have 180% of the seats of the current trains and a lot of pre booked seats (i.e. it's easy enough to assign the correct 4 coaches of seats which are solely for those stations without full 400m length platforms).

Actually SWR have ASDO which makes it a little easier, in that the guard can open from any door, rather than having to be in the right place so does forwards of them only open.

My main concern would be would the signal spacing work with 400m trains (as there's limited benefit if it's still going to take up the same space as two separate services as it's too long to work for just one).

 

[The Planner]

My main concern would be would the signal spacing work with 400m trains (as there's limited benefit if it's still going to take up the same space as two separate services as it's too long to work for just one).

Easily. There are very few routes where that would ever be a problem.

 

[Meerkat]

SDO is less of an issue on a train that will be highly, if not compulsoril, reserved, and has few stops - far less chance of someone being in the wrong part of the train.

re signalling wouldn’t the issue be whether a 400m train would overhang platforms in a way that blocked the signal section ahead/behind and maybe locked throat pointwork.

 

[GJMarshy]

I still don’t see how sorting out the capacity issues through Stockport creates any extra east-west capacity? It’s definitely related to general rail issues in Manchester, but not really the focus of this thread!

HS2 was the only real answer to that anyway, but that aside, how do we get more east-west intercity trains through Manchester without hitting a)connectivity and b)reducing space for local services?

There’ll be 8 fast transpennine services post-TRU. Those need to be accommodated somewhere, but right now there’s no plan.

 

[BrianW]

Priorities will need to be decided. What is Piccadilly Stn for? Similarly Victoria, Oxford Road, and the Airport Station. Who needs to start or finish there, or change trains, or to tram etc? Increasing train lengths (and/or density?) may help, though at the expense of frequency? Castlefield has presented poorly-considered 'issues' before; and that was before HS2, TRU, NPR and any other conconction of unlikely, however necessary, 'investments'. I suggest 1tph regular pattern services to the Airport from S/E/W/N; and a something like London tube interval 'local' services. Fast and frequent services Liverpool- Manchester; Manchester-Leeds; Manchester- Sheffield; Sheffield- Hull; Sheffield Leeds; Leeds- Newcastle. Possible 'semi-fasts' to serve Warrington, Wigan, Huddersfield, Halifax, Doncaster, Wakefield, etc.

For comparison- London's Central Line 49 stations, 46 miles, every few mins, less on branches ...?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Priorities will need to be decided. What is Piccadilly Stn for? Similarly Victoria, Oxford Road, and the Airport Station. Who needs to start or finish there

The matter of Manchester Airport railway station is a self-evident matter and not dissimilar to Stansted Airport railway station.

 

[Bevan Price]

Can someone explain the benefit obtained from reducing direct airport services? Presumably the airport passengers would still have to get to Piccadilly to change to the shuttles there, and those coming through the bottleneck now would still have to come through it to get to Piccadilly to change wouldn't they?

The current situation is that a 5-10 minute delay in a "remote" (from Manchester) location, e.g. York, Glasgow, etc., can make a "bo-lox" of the timetable in the Manchester area - and such delays are all too common. Eliminating most of those problems would make it easier to operate more reliable services in the Manchester area.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The current situation is that a 5-10 minute delay in a "remote" (from Manchester) location, e.g. York, Glasgow, etc., can make a "bo-lox" of the timetable in the Manchester area - and such delays are all too common. Eliminating most of those problems would make it easier to operate more reliable services in the Manchester area.

I am sure there are devotees of the airline industry who also see their particular mode as transport as the main one in comparison to other modes of transport.

 

[HSTEd]

I still don’t see how sorting out the capacity issues through Stockport creates any extra east-west capacity? It’s definitely related to general rail issues in Manchester, but not really the focus of this thread!

The capacity issues through STockport and in the rest of the Manchester area are inherently inter-related. Especially as via Stockport is a significant route for East West intercity traffic (via Sheffield).

A rebuild of Manchester Piccadilly and its approaches to allow for reduced conflicts is probably the most bang for your buck - and it also allows for the 400m platforms that make a lot of capacity concerns vanish.

HS2 was the only real answer to that anyway, but that aside, how do we get more east-west intercity trains through Manchester without hitting a)connectivity and b)reducing space for local services?

There’ll be 8 fast transpennine services post-TRU. Those need to be accommodated somewhere, but right now there’s no plan.

You have to disentagle the lines coming into Piccadilly to allow the trains to all cycle through without causing masses of crossing moves. That will mean extensive junction work and probably adding additional track in parts of South Manchester to fix the spaghetti.
If that is dealt with then the actual capacity for Castlefield will go up significantly because trains will reliably present to the eastern end of the route without getting stuck somewhere trying to cross other lines.
If you could also swing two additional through platforms then that would be gravy but even without it you could get Castlefield to run better.

With ATO it is possible to have the train enter a platform before the previous one has completely entered it. Whilst you obviously wouldn't actually timetable that, you would still have more capacity assuming similar margins held back for disruption mitigation