DfT RULES OUT EXTRA PLATFORMS AT PICCADILLY
SOME 30 options for resolving capacity problems through the Castlefield corridor between Deansgate and Manchester Piccadilly are being assessed by Network Rail, industry sources report.
The large number of proposals is understood to have been developed as a response to a decision by the Department for Transport that the originally proposed Northern Hub ‘Package C’ is unaffordable. This programme of work, for which a Transport and Works Act Order has been submitted by Network Rail but not approved by DfT, was to see the remodelling of Manchester Oxford Road with four, longer through platforms in place of the existing five, along with two additional platforms at Manchester Piccadilly which would have shortened headways by allowing services to alternate platforms, so a train could be routed into one platform whilst the other was occupied.
The view of operators is reportedly that there is no alternative to Package C to deliver the promised service commitments in the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises. Indeed, locally the view is that the work is needed just to maintain the current service level, which is significantly below the number of services proposed. It is understood that DfT now insists Package C can only go ahead if the industry can prove a case for it, with the 30 alternative options now part of the evaluation process.
According to one industry source, whilst it is possible to construct a compliant timetable the margins are so tight that the system does not work in practice. Recent improvements in performance have served merely to ‘paper over the cracks’ that exist through capping the number of trains at 12 per hour, the number that previously existed and far short of the 16 required to meet operators’ aspirations.
CONSTRAINED
Current planning rules for the section allow for a two-minute dwell time at Oxford Road and Piccadilly stations with two-minute platform reoccupation times (the time between a departing train starting to move and the next train coming to a stand). In reality this is rarely achieved, and even if it is the 15 trains per hour it permits is one train fewer than the required capacity. The situation will be further exacerbated by the arrival of new rolling stock, in particular the trains being introduced by TransPennine Express, where the end door arrangement of the vehicles will extend dwell times and the longer trains themselves will increase the time taken to clear the block sections before the next train can enter. A likely future assumption is that intervals between trains will need to be at least five minutes, locking the system into the previous maximum of 12 trains per hour.
It is understood some of the 30 options are being examined purely to discount them formally, while others are described as existing ‘purely for the purposes of proving that the only option is the full works package’. These options include: an additional platform
■ turnback sidings to the east of Manchester Victoria, either at the bottom or top of Miles Platting bank;
■ an additional platform at Salford Crescent;
■ the relocation of Windsor Bridge Junction further north;
■ loops on the Cheshire Lines Committee (CLC) and Chat Moss lines to allow overtaking of services;
■ grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction; and
■ a reduction in the number of platforms at Oxford Road to three and electrification to Stalybridge (which is supposed to be part of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade anyway).
One final proposal is the conversion of the line from Manchester to Atherton to tram operation, meaning services would run onto the increasingly crowded streets of Manchester rather than over the congested heavy rail network. Some of these options are reportedly as expensive as the abandoned Package C, while others would aid service recovery but do little to help capacity.
Readers of Modern Railways have been quick to propose projects which would see freight services from Trafford Park diverted away from the centre of Manchester (‘Forum’, this month). It is understood that these or similar proposals are amongst the 30 options evaluated, but it has been decided that ultimately they would probably not solve anything as the West Coast main line between Crewe and Acton Bridge is full and a major resignalling scheme on the CLC route would be required, as well as the electrification of the line.