Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly one option.

Chop the whole corridor into short Thameslink-style block section to suit passenger trains closing up close together, but also suitable for freights by reserving the additional block sections ahead needed to suit their braking distance.

Certainly 13/14 worked better in the days of permissive working. ETCS could offer that kind of "closing up" with better safety.

 

[Ianno87]

Essentially, it's claiming that medium term passenger growth can be accommodated by train lengthening. Which makes sense as only very recently most of these routes were 2/3/4 car trains, now extended to 4/6/8 car etc. So that in itself is a substantial uplift in capacity compared to only 3-4 years ago without actually having to run extra train paths.

Musing some more, I suspect any post-B+ frequency uplifts (and associated infrastructure to enable these) will be connectivity, rather than demand-driven.

If I were going to speculate, my £1 bet would be on:
1) Reinstatement of the Victoria TPE terminating service back to Manchester Airport via the Chord

2) Reinstatement of a direct Sheffield-Airport link. Which might not be an unpicking of the Cleethorpes-Liverpool service, but a new, third Hope Valley fast. Maybe even resurrecting the original Manchester Hub idea of routing to Manchester Airport via Marple, Ashburys, Victoria and the Chord.

3) Infrastructure to permit the North Wales service to operate via Northwich into Piccadilly shed. Consequently, the Victoria-Leeds terminating service extended to form a second Leeds-Chester service per hour (as per Option C)

4) Some way, shape, or form of serving Golborne station. Possibly by un-routing one service from the Bolton corridor (back-filled by a replacement path to net increase Bolton/Preston corridor capacity for demand growth)

Certainly 13/14 worked better in the days of permissive working.

Well, it worked until the train drew up to the “b” end of the platform. Then almighty stampede of passengers down the platform that took longer to sort out than if the train had just waited for the “a” end to be free.

 

[Purple Orange]

With the addition of the WMT 323s, how would this time table affect allocation of Northern EMU units?

It seems that all Northern services through Stockport will terminate in the main shed (Crewe/Alderley Edge, Stoke, Hazel Grove), plus Glossop/Hadfield, through Castlefield there will be 4 services requiring EMUs and then we have the Southports that could be 769s still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, it worked until the train drew up to the “b” end of the platform. Then almighty stampede of passengers down the platform that took longer to sort out than if the train had just waited for the “a” end to be free.

No, that isn't how it happened. Almost everything was 2 car back then, the rear unit would just pull up immediately behind the stopped one on sight and so there wasn't the need for the "stampede". I have even seen three units.

The A/B thing was only added when the mid platform signal was added.

 

[Ianno87]

No, that isn't how it happened. Almost everything was 2 car back then, the rear unit would just pull up immediately behind the stopped one on sight and so there wasn't the need for the "stampede". I have even seen three units.

The A/B thing was only added when the mid platform signal was added.

Ah yes, that was pre- MP393 signal, of course (added in about 1998 IIRC)

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is to discuss the actual proposals in the consultation; if anyone has any suggestions to do anything differently, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already) in the Speculative Ideas section.

 

[Ianno87]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is to discuss the actual proposals in the consultation; if anyone has any suggestions to do anything differently, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already) in the Speculative Ideas section.

Noted. Though I think there is a very interesting discussion to be had about how B+ aligns with a longer term strategy.

 

[yorkie]

Noted. Though I think there is a very interesting discussion to be had about how B+ aligns with a longer term strategy.

I agree and if anyone would like to create such a thread, feel free to link to it from here

 

[Glenn1969]

I agree and if anyone would like to create such a thread, feel free to link to it from here

I agree but thought B+ was meant to be a base to be built on. If Bald Rick is right about TRU leading to a significant capacity increase it will need to be because the increased services will have to go somewhere

 

[LOL The Irony]

3) Infrastructure to permit the North Wales service to operate via Northwich into Piccadilly shed. Consequently, the Victoria-Leeds terminating service extended to form a second Leeds-Chester service per hour (as per Option C)

4) Some way, shape, or form of serving Golborne station. Possibly by un-routing one service from the Bolton corridor (back-filled by a replacement path to net increase Bolton/Preston corridor capacity for demand growth)

If this indeed winds up being the case, then the question should be asked of 'why didn't we just go with Option C in the first place?'. It really boggles the mind why everyone was seemingly completely fine with B+ (especially Steve Rotheram, as his region will lose out due to it - was there some under the table deal to soften the blow?).

 

[Ianno87]

If this indeed winds up being the case, then the question should be asked of 'why didn't we just go with Option C in the first place?'. It really boggles the mind why everyone was seemingly completely fine with B+ (especially Steve Rotheram, as his region will lose out due to it - was there some under the table deal to soften the blow?).

Because Option C needs infrastructure (level crossing mitigations) to permit diversion of the North Wales service via Northwich, and that was basically the lynchpin of the whole thing.

 

[Glenn1969]

Because Option C needs infrastructure (level crossing mitigations) to permit diversion of the North Wales service via Northwich, and that was basically the lynchpin of the whole thing.

Didn't Option C also need significant extra resource- both trains and crew?

 

[Ianno87]

Didn't Option C also need significant extra resource- both trains and crew?

That as well. Which also contributed to making it undeliverable by May 2022.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That as well. Which also contributed to making it undeliverable by May 2022.

Well B+ isn't being delivered by May 2022. That was always a guide and not a deadline.

 

[Ianno87]

Well B+ isn't being delivered by May 2022. That was always a guide and not a deadline.

Not meeting May 2022 became the default, as stakeholders couldn't agree on Option B either (which didn't need infrastructure). So it "timed out" for May 2022.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because Option C needs infrastructure (level crossing mitigations) to permit diversion of the North Wales service via Northwich, and that was basically the lynchpin of the whole thing.

The mention above of Northwich makes me wonder what the time period involved is for the reinstatement of the recent station building/canopy (?) collapse there.

 

[wobman]

Because Option C needs infrastructure (level crossing mitigations) to permit diversion of the North Wales service via Northwich, and that was basically the lynchpin of the whole thing.

Plus TFW can't train the traincrew over the route until at least 2023-24, they have a huge training backlog and ongoing new traction training. So option C was unachievable for TFW services, plus the loss of the Manchester airport link was a deal breaker for N Wales and Chester area.

 

[wobman]

Didn't Option C also need significant extra resource- both trains and crew?

Yes the traincrew training would be huge for TFW and unachievable post covid, plus TFW have ongoing new traction training. I know the local user groups were very much against losing the Manchester airport link.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this indeed winds up being the case, then the question should be asked of 'why didn't we just go with Option C in the first place?'. It really boggles the mind why everyone was seemingly completely fine with B+ (especially Steve Rotheram, as his region will lose out due to it - was there some under the table deal to soften the blow?).

Loss of a Manchester Airport service might help him grow Liverpool Airport?

 

[Fokx]

Loss of a Manchester Airport service might help him grow Liverpool Airport?

Liverpool airport isn’t in the same league as Manchester Airport in terms of destinations

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Loss of a Manchester Airport service might help him grow Liverpool Airport?

That is rather optimistic to say the very least.

 

[Rhydgaled]

"Not impossible". But the whole point of Option B+ (or at least part of the point) is to avoid trains reversing in through platforms at Victoria completely, as that is known to be a contributor to performance issues. Sending the Scotland through Castlefield is simply the lesser of two evils.

Is that the 'lesser of two evils' purely in performance terms I wonder or is there a political element of through trains to Piccadilly and/or the airport factored in as well? I know reversals at Victoria are harmful to performance, but more harmful than putting a extra regional express / intercity unit through Castlefield?

3) Infrastructure to permit the North Wales service to operate via Northwich into Piccadilly shed. Consequently, the Victoria-Leeds terminating service extended to form a second Leeds-Chester service per hour (as per Option C)

Didn't we establish that Chester-Piccadilly via Northwich is slower than Chester-Victoria via the current Warrington Bank Quay route? The Welsh politicians complained enough about losing the airport link, now somebody wants to make the journey into central Manchester slower as well?

 

[wobman]

Liverpool airport isn’t in the same league as Manchester Airport in terms of destinations

It's a shame but it's true, Manchester airport offers far more destinations and the railway station is in the airport unlike Liverpool south parkway were you need a bus to get to the airport.

 

[Ianno87]

Is that the 'lesser of two evils' purely in performance terms I wonder or is there a political element of through trains to Piccadilly and/or the airport factored in as well? I know reversals at Victoria are harmful to performance, but more harmful than putting a extra regional express / intercity unit through Castlefield?

Trying to use Victoria as a through and turnback station simultaneously is generally a clumsy way of operating it.

Didn't we establish that Chester-Piccadilly via Northwich is slower than Chester-Victoria via the current Warrington Bank Quay route? The Welsh politicians complained enough about losing the airport link, now somebody wants to make the journey into central Manchester slower as well?

Unless the infrastructure study for this service includes looking at the line speeds to offset the journey time impact (Especially if level crossing constraints to line speed to addressed).

 

[TheSel]

Trying to use Victoria as a through and turnback station simultaneously is generally a clumsy way of operating it.

How else would you use a station that has through platforms and bays? Surely you're not suggesting everything should terminate and return the way it arrived? Or perhaps you'd prefer trains into platforms 1 and 2 to ignore the buffer stops and just plough on through the concourse? I think there may be some health and safety implications to prevent that approach being adopted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How else would you use a station that has through platforms and bays? Surely you're not suggesting everything should terminate and return the way it arrived? Or perhaps you'd prefer trains into platforms 1 and 2 to ignore the buffer stops and just plough on through the concourse? I think there may be some health and safety implications to prevent that approach being adopted.

What he's saying, and he's right, is that everything from the west should run through the station to terminate somewhere else rather than at Victoria because there are no west-facing bays. There are more trains to/from the east than the west, so plenty to connect stuff to via the other platforms.

It's not dissimilar to the use of Manchester Airport as a terminus of convenience. If Manchester had more than one bay of west-facing terminal capacity I don't doubt that many of the through Airport services would instead terminate.

The spanners in that works are the TfW (politically) and the Scotland service (because it's an EMU and there is a lack of wires east of Vic).

 

[BrianW]

IIRC the principal (only?) objective for the recovery task force was to improve/ restore/ enable reliability.

The 'prompt' for its creation the 'shambles' of Castlefield.

The main considerations therefore were about capacity and its maximisation within existing infrastructure.

The offering of Options was a political one in the sense of politicians and professionals being able to say- 'that's what you chose'.

The creation of Option B+ (not in the original A/B/C options) has created dither and delay. No-one could satisfy the conflicting 'demands' of the pressure groups and 'representatives' of Southport, Stockport and Sheffield without vision and impartial investment.

What hope for GBR- can't even manage a Great Manchester Railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The creation of Option B+ (not in the original A/B/C options) has created dither and delay. No-one could satisfy the conflicting 'demands' of the pressure groups and 'representatives' of Southport, Stockport and Sheffield without vision and impartial investment.

Not only that, but it was created because Option C was infeasible because there was no scope to move the TfW service to the Mid Cheshire Line due to the level crossing issues.

While a lot of fuss is made about Southport, this was a relatively minor tweak, just swapping it for something else.

 

[daodao]

While a lot of fuss is made about Southport, this was a relatively minor tweak, just swapping it for something else.

I disagree. It is disruptive to service patterns to split the Southport service between 2 stations in Manchester, and sending any Southport trains to the Castlefield line is likely to have an adverse effect on future service performance through the route from Salford Crescent to the Castlefield line. It is wrong for a small town 40+ miles away from Manchester in another metropolitan conurbation to have been given preferential treatment (as a result of lobbying) over the residents of North Trafford, whose local line will be henceforth only be permitted to have a (fairly useless) 1 tph stopping service. The days of rich businessmen commuting from the seaside to Manchester on the old club trains have long since gone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree. It is disruptive to service patterns to split the Southport service between 2 stations in Manchester, and sending any Southport trains to the Castlefield line is likely to have an adverse effect on future service performance through the route from Salford Crescent to the Castlefield line. It is wrong for a small town 40+ miles away from Manchester in another metropolitan conurbation to have been given preferential treatment (as a result of lobbying) over the residents of North Trafford, whose local line will be henceforth only be permitted to have a (fairly useless) 1 tph stopping service.

So what you're saying is that a relatively low-used local stopping service should have priority over a much higher-used regional service?

Castlefield isn't just about Manchester, it's about the North's entire regional service. Therefore there is no good reason to prioritise views of people who happen to live within Greater Manchester. It would be equivalent to saying "Thameslink is for people from Mill Hill Broadway, not Bedford".

Talking of the CLC stopper we have:
Warrington C: will use the half hourly fast
Birchwood: will use the hourly fast
Glazebrook: about as useful as Dent, Bescar Lane and the likes - in the middle of nowhere and very low usage
Irlam, Flixton: probably the two losers, but may receive calls in the fast(s) and certainly used to in the morning peak
Chassen Road: quite near Flixton; due to the presence of a large park has a very small catchment indeed
Urmston: will get a call in one of the fasts I believe
Humphrey Park and Trafford Park: quite close in and well served by buses, unlikely to be busy unless they were Metrolinked with 5tph

So not practically a huge loss, compared with the Liverpool side where things look more like the rest of Merseyrail.