Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Watershed]

AIUI, Network Rail have a seperate workstream at the moment examining what the benefit of 15/16 to capacity and performance actually is (presumably using Option B+ with no enhancement as the starting position). It may prove that just building 15/16 (plus Oxford Road) does very little for further resilience., as the service specification is designed to give enough recovery on the available infrastructure already.

What a complete waste of time. How many times do you need to model it to know you're going to improve reliability and capacity if trains can overtake (or at least dwell simultaneously) at Piccadilly? Meaning that you don't need to resort to effective single line working every time there's a broken down or delayed train.

There's a reason the rebuild of London Bridge didn't rationalise things to one platform per line towards Charing X/Thameslink/Cannon St. Having additional platforms substantially increases capacity when you have dwells as long as those necessary through Castlefield, just as with major London stations.

Given that the very raison d'être of MRTF is to develop a reliable timetable for the current infrastructure, there is little point in having platforms 15 and 16 if all you are going to run is MRTF. But p15/16 lets you increase the timetable back to Dec 19 levels (if not more) whilst keeping MRTF levels of reliability.

All of this modelling, and more, was surely done when NR submitted the TWAO application nearly 10 years ago. But yet that application is still sitting on the Minister's putative desk, undecided. This is simply another excuse to delay the inevitable.

 

[Ianno87]

I've just compared Real Time Trains for Manchester Oxford Road with London Blackfriars- no comparison. OK there were lots of 'teething problems' with the latter, but surely it demonstrates a benefit of a well-cordinated regular timetable and short headways.

Also demonstrates thet 'whoever shouts loudest' and 'plays the system' and is well-connected, gets their way and enables 'the railway' to say it has listened to people ... a major risk with so-called 'consultation'.

Thameslink had its own version - the Wimbledon loop.

What a complete waste of time. How many times do you need to model it to know you're going to improve reliability and capacity if trains can overtake (or at least dwell simultaneously) at Piccadilly? Meaning that you don't need to resort to effective single line working every time there's a broken down or delayed train.

Thameslink manages with one platform per direction, with bi-di as a get out. Why is Manchester different?

There's a reason the rebuild of London Bridge didn't rationalise things to one platform per line towards Charing X/Thameslink/Cannon St. Having additional platforms substantially increases capacity when you have dwells as long as those necessary through Castlefield, just as with major London stations.

Substantially increases capacity if and only of the wider network can also accommodate the extra trains.

Given that the very raison d'être of MRTF is to develop a reliable timetable for the current infrastructure, there is little point in having platforms 15 and 16 if all you are going to run is MRTF. But p15/16 lets you increase the timetable back to Dec 19 levels (if not more) whilst keeping MRTF levels of reliability.

Option B+ is merely the first step. There needs to be a "what next?" question, without jumping to 15/16 as the magic solution.

All of this modelling, and more, was surely done when NR submitted the TWAO application nearly 10 years ago. But yet that application is still sitting on the Minister's putative desk, undecided. This is simply another excuse to delay the inevitable.

Except that the baseline timetable itself has evolved (to B+) as has passenger demand (Covid) and rolling stock (new fleets)..Previous conclusions, and the intended end output (in terms of which additional services are enabled) may not longer apply

 

[py_megapixel]

Thameslink manages with one platform per direction, with bi-di as a get out. Why is Manchester different?

Thameslink has a homogeneous fleet of high-performance EMUs optimised for getting passengers on and off as quickly as possible. Castlefield has a few hourly services operated with modern units, but many of them are operated with either trains with suboptimal door positions, or Northern's junk from the 1980s.

 

[Ianno87]

Thameslink has a homogeneous fleet of high-performance EMUs optimised for getting passengers on and off as quickly as possible. Castlefield has a few hourly services operated with modern units, but many of them are operated with either trains with suboptimal door positions, or Northern's junk from the 1980s.

...so make Castlefield more like Thameslink then. High performance DMU/EMUs with 1/3 2/3 doors. Straighten up and widen the platforms, optimise the signalling. Etc etc. Just like Thameslink did.

Building shiny infrastricture to cover operational inefficiency is perverse.

 

[nr758123]

Big up my fellow Knutsfordians for making up 3% of the total responses, showing how needed the 2nd train is.
.

Likewise the 3% of responses from Slaithwaite, again supporting a second train per hour. Pity we weren't listened to.

 

[py_megapixel]

High performance DMU/EMUs with 1/3 2/3 doors.

I don't think that would be too difficult to achieve to be honest, in a few years.

Diagram all the Northern and TfW service to always be Civity; give the Liv-Notts route to TransPennine and reshuffle their rolling stock so all their services are 185s - almost done. Just leaves the question of what you do with the Scotland service.

 

[Ianno87]

Just leaves the question of what you do with the Scotland service.

Might just have to be the "odd one out" pending an infrastructure solution to send it elsewhere (i.e. Victoria). At least they fit the "high performance" box.

In the meantime, having them omit any intermediate station between Manchester and Preston will at least mitigate the issue (as well as generally relatively few people likely to alight them at Piccadilly from the Airport).

 

[323235]

Is it? That's added capacity and nice seats if they stick with the Grammers.



With what, though? 222s would be a capacity downgrade. Double 185s would work, that said.

(Go on, admit it, you wanted to play with Mk5s? )

All of that is completely irrelevant for this thread, the main problem with 158s on the Castlefield Corridor is the door arrangement, which causes delays and extended dwell time. It has to be a priority to put 170s on Nottingham - Liverpool over 158s. It would seem that 170s have already ventured on the route from a guards post on twitter.

 

[CAF397]

Isn't this a capacity reduction for the Preston - Bolton corridor vs what even is now? 2 * 6-car 331s per hour (Airport and Hazel Grove) and every 2 hours a 6 car 331 on Preston - Victoria.

Under the new plans the (presumably) 2 *6 car 331s per hour still run, as Airport trains, but rhe Preston to Victoria service is missing. This will also mean one of the Airport trains will pick up more stops.

I was hoping the full hourly Preston - Victoria would return.

Unless, the Barrow/Windermere train becomes semi fast, but then that'll be 3-car, or 2*2 cars.

 

[Watershed]

Thameslink manages with one platform per direction, with bi-di as a get out. Why is Manchester different?

Now, I know that you're just being the devil's advocate here, but for the benefit of anyone else - the Castlefield corridor is a completely different kettle of fish.

It has freight trains. They come from all parts of the country, and rarely run exactly to time.

It has trains that have come from much further afield (Glasgow, Norwich) and from a much wider selection of origins (meaning there's a higher chance of at least one train being caught up in disruption, resulting in a knock-on effect).

Access to the corridor is through a multiplicity of flat junctions at either end - any of which are liable to cause a holdup, in the event of a conflicting train running late.

Oh and Thameslink has in-cab signalling with a 90 second headway, operating on a uniform fleet of trains with doors at thirds and level boarding for wheelchair passengers.

You might as well say "The Victoria Line and la'al Ratty both run on rails. Why can't the Ratty run 36tph?"

Substantially increases capacity if and only of the wider network can also accommodate the extra trains.

Which, by and large, is definitely the case. Virtually all the lines that feed into Castlefield have the capacity for additional services compared to what's proposed in B+. They just don't have anywhere else to really send them, other than Castlefield.

Option B+ is merely the first step. There needs to be a "what next?" question, without jumping to 15/16 as the magic solution.

"What next" would be reinstating services which are in demand, but which have been axed as part of the compromises made to end up with B+.

Except that the baseline timetable itself has evolved (to B+) as has passenger demand (Covid) and rolling stock (new fleets)..Previous conclusions, and the intended end output (in terms of which additional services are enabled) may not longer apply

But 15/16 isn't a piece of infrastructure that only helps with one particular service group - like the Ordsall Chord. It would aid reliability even if no timetable changes were made. And it would halve the effective headway through Castlefield, from 4 to 2 minutes, so you could quite readily run something more intensive than Dec 19 with greater reliability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But 15/16 isn't a piece of infrastructure that only helps with one particular service group - like the Ordsall Chord. It would aid reliability even if no timetable changes were made. And it would halve the effective headway through Castlefield, from 4 to 2 minutes, so you could quite readily run something more intensive than Dec 19 with greater reliability.

And this is something the railway seems to have difficulty with, despite pretty much every major road improvement being for the purpose of adding capacity and thus resilience.

Even if nothing else happened, 15/16 would mean if a train gets stuck at Picc for a period of time - person taken ill, unit failure, needing to put the ramp down and load several wheelchair users, whatever - the service does not get stopped.

It is needed whatever else happens. Two-platform major stations are a bad idea. It isn't really feasible to fix that with Thameslink because of all the other stuff built around it, but it would be in the scheme of things quite easy to do it at Manchester Piccadilly - but it's now-or-never as if the wasteland opposite 13/14 gets built on that's the idea dead forever.

 

[mandub]

Looks like yet another reroll of the traincrew route & traction competence dice at certain Northern depots, with the accompanying necessity of hundreds of days new training, hundreds of days past training all wasted and reliance on overtime continuing for a few more years...

Yep.
Link 2 at Picc (Liverpool link) won't have much (any?) Liverpool work at all after this if there's only 1 Northern train per hr on the CLC - and the route is signed by Lime St depot and Picc link 2.

 

[Purple Orange]

And this is something the railway seems to have difficulty with, despite pretty much every major road improvement being for the purpose of adding capacity and thus resilience.

Even if nothing else happened, 15/16 would mean if a train gets stuck at Picc for a period of time - person taken ill, unit failure, needing to put the ramp down and load several wheelchair users, whatever - the service does not get stopped.

It is needed whatever else happens. Two-platform major stations are a bad idea. It isn't really feasible to fix that with Thameslink because of all the other stuff built around it, but it would be in the scheme of things quite easy to do it at Manchester Piccadilly - but it's now-or-never as if the wasteland opposite 13/14 gets built on that's the idea dead forever.

The land where P15 & P16 would be isn’t at risk of being developed for anything other than P15 & P16.

 

[Ianno87]

Now, I know that you're just being the devil's advocate here, but for the benefit of anyone else - the Castlefield corridor is a completely different kettle of fish.

It has freight trains. They come from all parts of the country, and rarely run exactly to time.

It has trains that have come from much further afield (Glasgow, Norwich) and from a much wider selection of origins (meaning there's a higher chance of at least one train being caught up in disruption, resulting in a knock-on effect).

Access to the corridor is through a multiplicity of flat junctions at either end - any of which are liable to cause a holdup, in the event of a conflicting train running late.

Oh and Thameslink has in-cab signalling with a 90 second headway, operating on a uniform fleet of trains with doors at thirds and level boarding for wheelchair passengers.

You might as well say "The Victoria Line and la'al Ratty both run on rails. Why can't the Ratty run 36tph?"

Well, that's why nobody proposing the equivalent capability of Thameslink (24tph) through Castlefield; 13tph (maybe up to 16tph) reflects all these things, and getting that level of service to work better is what I'm getting at.

Incidentally, Thameslink services also come a reasonable distance (Peterborough, Cambridge, Brighton, Littlehampton, Horsham etc) and have to deal with flat junctions on route too.

Which, by and large, is definitely the case. Virtually all the lines that feed into Castlefield have the capacity for additional services compared to what's proposed in B+.

Do they? Have a look at the Castlefield Corridor Congested Infrastructrue report https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf), and highlights a number of wider area constraints too (e.g. Salford Crescent)

"What next" would be reinstating services which are in demand, but which have been axed as part of the compromises made to end up with B+.

But are they "in demand"? Just because a service happened to once exist doesn't mean there's demand for it (especially if capacity can be provided via train lengthening), or it's the best use of capacity compared to serving somewhere else. Demand versus capacity needs re-assessing on each route, versus Option B+ as a baseline.

But 15/16 isn't a piece of infrastructure that only helps with one particular service group - like the Ordsall Chord. It would aid reliability even if no timetable changes were made. And it would halve the effective headway through Castlefield, from 4 to 2 minutes, so you could quite readily run something more intensive than Dec 19 with greater reliability.

But would 15/16 do that in isolation? We don't know. (I think that's what NR are looking at in parallel) Just plonking another track or platform down in one place doesn't (for example) solve presentation issues from elsewhere. I'm sure even NR have said in the past that 15/16 are merely treating the symptom, not the cause.

And this is something the railway seems to have difficulty with, despite pretty much every major road improvement being for the purpose of adding capacity and thus resilience.

Even if nothing else happened, 15/16 would mean if a train gets stuck at Picc for a period of time - person taken ill, unit failure, needing to put the ramp down and load several wheelchair users, whatever - the service does not get stopped.

It is needed whatever else happens. Two-platform major stations are a bad idea. It isn't really feasible to fix that with Thameslink because of all the other stuff built around it, but it would be in the scheme of things quite easy to do it at Manchester Piccadilly - but it's now-or-never as if the wasteland opposite 13/14 gets built on that's the idea dead forever.

The idea of Option B+ is that it provides a stable timetable that is capable of absorbing minor perturbation without requiring infrastructure to do so.

So, if it achieves that aim, what is Platform 15/16 for?

The answer can only be supporting some additional train paths (and permitting those to operate robustly, unlike the May 2019 plan, with other supporting infrastructure if necessary).

 

[tbtc]

Thameslink had its own version - the Wimbledon loop

This gave me the idea for a new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ntatives-who-punch-above-their-weight.223433/

(hope you don't mind)

...so make Castlefield more like Thameslink then. High performance DMU/EMUs with 1/3 2/3 doors. Straighten up and widen the platforms, optimise the signalling. Etc etc. Just like Thameslink did.

Building shiny infrastricture to cover operational inefficiency is perverse.

Agreed - there are lots of simple solutions that could be used on Castlefield (we were almost going to have a timetable built around simple half hourly services)

Spending hundreds of millions on two additional platforms at Piccadilly wouldn't solve the flat junctions elsewhere on the route and would only increase demands to shove even more services through Castlefield (e,g. we should have had the hourly Bradford - Manchester Airport by now - I'm sure that other places will want a Castlefield service if they feel that there's more space... need to get away from the addiction of everywhere wanting direct Castlefield services instead of throwing even more money at it!)

We tried to improve things with the Windsor Link, then the trams from Victoria to Piccadilly/ Deansgate, then with the Orsdsall Chord and Second City Crossing... spaff hundreds of millions at 15/16 and you'll only see campaigners move on from that to insisting that we need a tunnel under Manchester, then another tunnel, then a monorail...

 

[Ianno87]

This gave me the idea for a new thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ntatives-who-punch-above-their-weight.223433/

(hope you don't mind)

No worries. At least nobody [yet] is proposing a 'vital' Wimbledon to Southport via Thameslink and Castlefield service

 

[Rhydgaled]

Same tired 30 year old trains that have had a hard life and have no chance of a mechanical rebuild, same knackered air conditioning/heating, same standard 158 issues.

I was hoping we would get an opportunity to provide a decent Intercity service.

Other than 222s, what Intercity stock is there besides 802s with awful seats?

Might just have to be the "odd one out" pending an infrastructure solution to send it elsewhere (i.e. Victoria). At least they fit the "high performance" box.

Why would the Manchester-Scotland trains need an infrastructure solution to go to Victoria? The only issue I can think of is the lack of west-facing bays at Victoria and the lack of wires to allow them to run through to Stalybridge (to be fixed soon?) or Rochdale.

 

[Ianno87]

The only issue I can think of is the lack of west-facing bays at Victoria and the lack of wires to allow them to run through to Stalybridge (to be fixed soon?) or Rochdale.

....the wires and/or platforms would count as infrastructure.

Also assuming there is capacity to accommodate these at Rochdale/Stalybridge (which would already have 2tph each in their respective bay platforms)

 

[Starmill]

...so make Castlefield more like Thameslink then. High performance DMU/EMUs with 1/3 2/3 doors. Straighten up and widen the platforms, optimise the signalling. Etc etc. Just like Thameslink did.

The challenges of that have been well documented. They're no less than expansion at Manchester Piccadilly would be. You'd also need to look at various bits of additional grade separation just as Thameslink received, in particular at Slade Lane Jn and Euxton Jn. Probably £1 billion at least just on those.

Isn't this a capacity reduction for the Preston - Bolton corridor vs what even is now? 2 * 6-car 331s per hour (Airport and Hazel Grove) and every 2 hours a 6 car 331 on Preston - Victoria.

Yes. All of the options would include slightly less capacity. It will be even worse if the Cumbria service calls only at Bolton and not at Chorley.

 

[Rhydgaled]

....the wires and/or platforms would count as infrastructure.

Also assuming there is capacity to accommodate these at Rochdale/Stalybridge (which would already have 2tph each in their respective bay platforms)

Yes, but neither the wires nor the platforms prevent the services reaching Victoria - they would just have to terminate in the through platforms at Victoria which while not ideal I'm assuming is not impossible.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but neither the wires nor the platforms prevent the services reaching Victoria - they would just have to terminate in the through platforms at Victoria which while not ideal I'm assuming is not impossible.

It certainly is. There's a weekly train from Manchester Victoria to Edinburgh.

 

[Watershed]

It certainly is. There's a weekly train from Manchester Victoria to Edinburgh.

Worth noting that, until December, this train doesn't technically terminate in Victoria as it arrives ECS from Longsight. Ironically, that makes it one of the only electric trains to use the Ordsall Chord

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, but neither the wires nor the platforms prevent the services reaching Victoria - they would just have to terminate in the through platforms at Victoria which while not ideal I'm assuming is not impossible.

"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.

Worth noting that, until December, this train doesn't technically terminate in Victoria as it arrives ECS from Longsight. Ironically, that makes it one of the only electric trains to use the Ordsall Chord

Apart from 802s when they go to Manchester Airport via the Chord.

The challenges of that have been well documented. They're no less than expansion at Manchester Piccadilly would be. You'd also need to look at various bits of additional grade separation just as Thameslink received, in particular at Slade Lane Jn and Euxton Jn. Probably £1 billion at least just on those.

The congested infrastructure report I linked above is likely to be a decent indication of where interventions would be needed (not necessarily grade separation, but segregation of various flows). Salford Crescent being one example.

 

[WatcherZero]

The buzz seems to be at a minimum one extra platform at Crescent.

Im interested about the plan to remove the bay platform at Oxford Road to lengthen the platforms, under B+ that platform will now be required.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Im interested about the plan to remove the bay platform at Oxford Road to lengthen the platforms, under B+ that platform will now be required.

These options are the timetable until those works take place.

 

[Ianno87]

These options are the timetable until those works take place.

Correct.

Option B+ is not intended to require any infrastructure changes beyond what is there today, in order to perform acceptably.

That's why I keep bleating on about B+ becoming a new baseline against which infrastructure enhancements can be tested for uplifting the train service beyond B+ robustly. Which may or may not include stuff like Oxford Road reconfiguration.

 

[HST43257]

Option B+ is merely the first step. There needs to be a "what next?" question, without jumping to 15/16 as the magic solution.

ETCS of some sort? Wouldn’t mind it personally

 

[Ianno87]

ETCS of some sort? Wouldn’t mind it personally

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.

 

[javelin]

I wouldn't expect much to happen with the Castlefield Corridor to be honest. The follow-up NR report to the one posted above, the capacity enhancement plan, was published early this year and instead of detailing potential interventions as planned just said effectively "Covid now means that after the MRTF timetable we may not have to do anything".

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Castlefield-Corridor-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Enhancement-Plan-26-February-2021.pdf

Following conclusion of the timetable consultation, agreement to the preferred timetable option is expected to
follow by summer 2021. Implementation of the preferred timetable, targeted for May 2022, should deliver better
performance and provide capacity for recovery and growth post Covid-19. Given achievement of these outcomes,
the Castlefield Corridor may no longer meet the congested infrastructure criteria.

 

[Ianno87]

I wouldn't expect much to happen with the Castlefield Corridor to be honest. The follow-up NR report to the one posted above, the capacity enhancement plan, was published early this year and instead of detailing potential interventions as planned just said effectively "Covid now means that after the MRTF timetable we may not have to do anything".

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Castlefield-Corridor-Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Enhancement-Plan-26-February-2021.pdf

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.

The MRTF programme drew together previous analysis and forecasting to project a growth horizon to 2030, to support understanding of demand and capacity constraints, and building requirements around a projection of 3% per annum passenger growth validated with stakeholders. Network Rail’s long term planning analysis shows that 4 x 6-car trains per hour will not be sufficient to carry peak loadings from Bolton to Manchester Piccadilly beyond 2030 and that an extra service or lengthening of services is required. However, as this work was completed pre Covid-19 it is now assessed that this requirement may not be required until 2040. The Bolton corridor represents the greatest challenge in terms of passenger volumes to the west of the Castlefield Corridor. Infrastructure decisions during the next decade to accommodate post-2040 growth are driven most by considerations on the Bolton corridor. However, until the impact of Covid-19 on long term passenger demand is understood, the priority is to implement the May 2022 timetable solution that supports capacity and performance.

The above quote from the report is basically saying the big growth corridor is Bolton, which might need an intervention in the late 2030s / early 2040s, but lengthening suffices until then.