Grade separation around the Castlefield Corridor, Manchester

[ABB125]

Please note: this thread is specifically about grade separation of junctions (such as Castlefield Jn, Ordsall Lane Jn), not things like train service amendments (unless specifically relevant ). Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
With all the problems going on around Manchester I decided to unleash my coloured pens and grade-separate Castlefield, Ordsall Lane and Windsor Bridge (x2) junctions. Before I describe my proposals, I will just say that I have virtually no local knowledge or experience (or training!) in this sort of thing, and all these plans are based on Google Earth imagery. I am quite happy (and expect) to be shown why this can't happen by locals and/or people involved in this sort of thing.
-------------------------------------------
Castlefield Junction

Here I would divert one Metrolink track (or both if it's easier) onto the currently redundant (?) parallel to the currently used one, rejoining the current alignment just to the west of Deansgate-Castlefield station. This would require at least the row of parking spaces next to the Metrolink tracks in the adjacent car park to be removed, but I would have though that there would still be space for the access road.
A new connection from the eastbound CLC line to one of the now unused Metrolink tracks somewhere north of Cornbrook station would be built, which would then continue along the current Metrolink viaduct. As soon as that viaduct has crossed the line towards Salford, a new viaduct would be built down to rejoin the line to Manchester just west of Deansgate station. The existing eastbound CLC line and junction would be retained for operational flexibility.
This scheme would provide grade separation with minimal (relatively!) new build. Please see the diagrams above. The issues I can immediately think of are

• Condition of the currently unused viaduct
• Gradient of the new viaduct at Deansgate - it would have a maximum length of about 180m, and if the height difference between the two viaducts is ~5m (is it? I don't know), this would be a gradient of about 1 in 36. Does the fact that all trains will be going downhill on this have any effect on whether this would be acceptable?

--------------------------------------------
Ordsall Lane Junction

Here I would put one of the line pairs over/under the other, probably Victoria-Liverpool over Piccadilly-Preston because:

• The former would have a longer run up from the east due to (in my scheme) no pointwork to deal with (whereas Piccadilly-Preston has the chord towards Liverpool), reducing the gradient of the ramp up to the flyover.
• The latter appears to sink down a bit for the tunnel to the north-west of the junction, so could potentially be dug down earlier, and deeper, to further reduce the flyover gradient.

The Piccadilly-Liverpool connection would be retained roughly in its current location as there appears to be plenty of spare viaduct for it.
The new Liverpool-Piccadilly chord would turn slightly left from the current alignment immediately after the (what look like a) scrap yard (if necessary "cutting the corner" through compulsory purchase) and incline upwards over the westbound Piccadilly-Preston line, before coming down again between the PIC-PRE lines and joining the eastbound PRE-PIC track.
Problems I can thank of are:

• Is is possible to build ramps for flyovers on top of existing viaducts?
• Gradient of the flyover - there would be ~200-250m of space either side of the point where the two lines would cross, and assuming (again) that there is ~5m separation between lines, this gives a gradient of 1 in 40 to 50. For a line with relatively heavy freight traffic this may not be acceptable. If the PIC-PRE line was dug down a bit, the gradient of the flyover could be less.
• Would it be possible to rebuild the road bridge to the west of the junction if neccesary to allow a shallower gradient?
• Reduces diversionary options if the line via Salford Central is closed.

----------------------------------------------
Salford Crescent

Having never been to this station, I will simply post my track diagram and let others tell me the problems. I have used island platforms for ease of interchange between trains.
-----------------------------------------------
I hope at least some of what I've written makes sense!
I also hope that some of it may be possible to implement!
Thank you for getting to the end as well!

 

[WatcherZero]

There isn't enough room in the cutting for two islands at Salford Crescent, it would have to be an island platform and two single faces.

Castlefield the condition of the unused viaduct (known locally as the Birdcage) is swiss cheese, massive holes in the deck and severe corrosion problems. You could possibly refurbish it as a garden bridge but that's about it.

 

[ABB125]

There isn't enough room in the cutting for two islands at Salford Crescent, it would have to be an island platform and two single faces.

Castlefield the condition of the unused viaduct (known locally as the Birdcage) is swiss cheese, massive holes in the deck and severe corrosion problems. You could possibly refurbish it as a garden bridge but that's about it.

Thanks.
Surely 2 island platforms and associated track take up the same amount of space as an island and 2 singles?

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks.
Surely 2 island platforms and associated track take up the same amount of space as an island and 2 singles?

In fact, in modern standards 2 x single platforms are wider than 1 x island platform.

 

[30907]

I think you may have made some heroic assumptions about gradients, but apart from that it's fine - not being sarcastic.
Castlefield Jn - I suspect cannot be done if WatcherZero is right
Ordsall Lane - would be the most useful IMO, but the road bridge would be a challenge. Even providing a third track allowing Piccadilly-Chat Moss services to stand clear of the junctions while the world passed by (!) might be worth it.
Salford Cr - a third platform would be a start
Salford C - ISTR there are plans/ideas for improving the junction with the Curve.

 

[WatcherZero]

The advantage of the singles is you can build them into the slope of the cuttings sides whereas with track you would have to widen and build a sheer retaining wall.

 

[ABB125]

In fact, in modern standards 2 x single platforms are wider than 1 x island platform.

The advantage of the singles is you can build them into the slope of the cuttings sides whereas with track you would have to widen and build a sheer retaining wall.

That's interesting to know, I hadn't thought about that. At the end of the day, 2 islands may be better from a passenger perspective, but if they don't fit in the available space for a reasonable cost, 2 singles and an island are better than a single island as now.

I think you may have made some heroic assumptions about gradients, but apart from that it's fine - not being sarcastic.
Castlefield Jn - I suspect cannot be done if WatcherZero is right
Ordsall Lane - would be the most useful IMO, but the road bridge would be a challenge. Even providing a third track allowing Piccadilly-Chat Moss services to stand clear of the junctions while the world passed by (!) might be worth it.
Salford Cr - a third platform would be a start
Salford C - ISTR there are plans/ideas for improving the junction with the Curve.

I was slightly concerned about the potential gradients, but I don't know what the standards say about this, it would be interesting to see whether my proposals would be permitted (probably not!).

 

[Greybeard33]

Regarding Ordsall Lane Junction, the following was recently posted on another thread:

An anomalous feature of the area's network is the existence of two routes between Victoria and Salford Crescent, one direct passing the aggregates terminal and the other via Ordsall Lane Jn. Going forward there should be no need to continue with this. As such a remodelling at Ordsall Lane could completely remove any connections to/from the other routes and the tracks from Victoria which pass through Salford Central on the south side of the formation. In other words "all" that is required is the Chat Moss tracks from Victoria to be elevated to pass over the whole Ordsall Lane site and connect with the Chat Moss route proper a little further west using a grade separated junction. The disused freight terminal area would provide some of the space needed meaning the biggest obstacle would be the complete rebuilding of the Oldfield Road (A5066) bridge. However one issue may well be whether such a route shoe-horned into this space would be suitable for continued use by freight trains.

I also note that the most recent report referred to upthread mentions not only the possibility of just such a scheme but also the need to deal with the Slade Lane Jn area in a similar manner. Again there is some under-/disused railway connected land in the area which would assist with this (for those not familiar with the area I'm referring to the site of the Eurostar depot). I have suggested the need for grade separation at both locations many times previously on this forum: perhaps there are planners around who agree with me.

 

[Greybeard33]

I was slightly concerned about the potential gradients, but I don't know what the standards say about this, it would be interesting to see whether my proposals would be permitted (probably not!).

I am no expert, but I recall a previous discussion in which the expert advice was that 1 in 100 would be the maximum gradient permitted, probably more like 1 in 130 to allow for freight - Deansgate station would have to be demolished to grade separate Castlefield Jn.

 

[ABB125]

I am no expert, but I recall a previous discussion in which the expert advice was that 1 in 100 would be the maximum gradient permitted, probably more like 1 in 130 to allow for freight - Deansgate station would have to be demolished to grade separate Castlefield Jn.

Thanks, that's good to know.

 

[markymark2000]

Salford could probably be done as the current island and a narrow Victoria platform to the east. I don't think a link from Swinton would work though into the Victoria platform.

Splitting the Vic and Pic services though should ease potential delays. Even with 3 platforms though with only from Bolton to Victoria services using this other platform, it is 3tph off the island at Salford.

Depending on space and speed over points, the new 'east' platform could be for all services from Bolton with the island southbound platform reserved for from Swinton services but then you have them crossing just outside the station onto the correct tracks.

 

[MarkyT]

Please note: this thread is specifically about grade separation of junctions (such as Castlefield Jn, Ordsall Lane Jn), not things like train service amendments (unless specifically relevant ). Thank you.
...
Ordsall Lane Junction
...

I agree with others this is the most practical. This is my version with the Windsor Link diving under the Eccles line. Instead of additional grade separation for trains from Eccles to get to Piccadilly, I have a 'right turn lane' between the Victoria lines for such trains to recess waiting for a path crossing the westbound as necessary:

As Greybeard33 points out, there's no need to retain connectivity between Victoria and Salford Crescent via this Junction as an alternative exists.

 

[Chester1]

Castlefield the condition of the unused viaduct (known locally as the Birdcage) is swiss cheese, massive holes in the deck and severe corrosion problems. You could possibly refurbish it as a garden bridge but that's about it.

The metal section of the viaduct is about 400m. If it is not listed then one option would be to demolish most of it and build a new viaduct for Metrolink in a similar style and use the current Metrolink viaduct for heavy rail. Heading west from the metal section there could be a 3 or 4 platform Metrolink stop, then 2 Metrolink and 2 heavy rail tracks on what is currently the car park road and Metrolink tracks. Finally, the current tram stop could be replaced by a 2 platform heavy rail terminus with 2 Metrolink tracks going around the northern edge to rejoin the current alignment. The two heavy rail platforms would be part of a four platform Deansgate Station, with the two halves connected by the footbridge. All regular CLC passenger services could terminate there and not enter the Castlefield corridor. Its a good location in the city centre and would have connections with Metrolink. Deansgate could have regular through services (4tph?) to connect CLC passengers to services to Piccadilly, Airport etc. It would be very expensive but Piccadilly 15 and 16 will cost several hundred million.

 

[ABB125]

I agree with others this is the most practical. This is my version with the Windsor Link diving under the Eccles line. Instead of additional grade separation for trains from Eccles to get to Piccadilly, I have a 'right turn lane' between the Victoria lines for such trains to recess waiting for a path crossing the westbound as necessary:
View attachment 72575
As Greybeard33 points out, there's no need to retain connectivity between Victoria and Salford Crescent via this Junction as an alternative exists.

Would it be possible to fit such a layout in the available space? As I said earlier I have no local knowledge, but your plan looks like it may be too big to fit.
Also, what software do you use to create your diagrams? I currently use Inkscape, but would prefer something specifically designed for railway diagrams.

The metal section of the viaduct is about 400m. If it is not listed then one option would be to demolish most of it and build a new viaduct for Metrolink in a similar style and use the current Metrolink viaduct for heavy rail. Heading west from the metal section there could be a 3 or 4 platform Metrolink stop, then 2 Metrolink and 2 heavy rail tracks on what is currently the car park road and Metrolink tracks. Finally, the current tram stop could be replaced by a 2 platform heavy rail terminus with 2 Metrolink tracks going around the northern edge to rejoin the current alignment. The two heavy rail platforms would be part of a four platform Deansgate Station, with the two halves connected by the footbridge. All regular CLC passenger services could terminate there and not enter the Castlefield corridor. Its a good location in the city centre and would have connections with Metrolink. Deansgate could have regular through services (4tph?) to connect CLC passengers to services to Piccadilly, Airport etc. It would be very expensive but Piccadilly 15 and 16 will cost several hundred million.

Interesting idea; would the diversion of services to the new terminal Deansgate platforms be popular with passengers? Are you envisioning all 4tph on the CLC to terminate there?

 

[adamedwards]

Re the gradients at Deansgate, keep the current junction for freight and make the flyover emu/dmu only. With the junction as is the flyover also becomes a loop, if needed. A similar situation applies at Hitchen since the flyover was built there.

 

[30907]

I agree with others this is the most practical. This is my version with the Windsor Link diving under the Eccles line. Instead of additional grade separation for trains from Eccles to get to Piccadilly, I have a 'right turn lane' between the Victoria lines for such trains to recess waiting for a path crossing the westbound as necessary:
View attachment 72575

I like the right turn lane idea but I think the gradient at the eastern end would be challenging.
My original idea was for a long double track spur for Chat Moss-Castlefield but a better solution would be for an eastbound spur line north of the flyover, crossing the down line to Salford Crescent on the level.

On reflection, actually building this without massive disruption would be difficult, and I think you would have to build the flyover just north of the existing layout which would be retained until the last possible moment. Even so it would take more than one weekend to connect the new layout!

PS if the flyover is to carry freight the western junction would be just east of the Albion Way roundabout, the eastern end at Salford Central, which would tie in with plans to improve the layout there.

 

[B&I]

The metal section of the viaduct is about 400m. If it is not listed then one option would be to demolish most of it and build a new viaduct for Metrolink in a similar style and use the current Metrolink viaduct for heavy rail. Heading west from the metal section there could be a 3 or 4 platform Metrolink stop, then 2 Metrolink and 2 heavy rail tracks on what is currently the car park road and Metrolink tracks. Finally, the current tram stop could be replaced by a 2 platform heavy rail terminus with 2 Metrolink tracks going around the northern edge to rejoin the current alignment. The two heavy rail platforms would be part of a four platform Deansgate Station, with the two halves connected by the footbridge. All regular CLC passenger services could terminate there and not enter the Castlefield corridor. Its a good location in the city centre and would have connections with Metrolink. Deansgate could have regular through services (4tph?) to connect CLC passengers to services to Piccadilly, Airport etc. It would be very expensive but Piccadilly 15 and 16 will cost several hundred million.

How is the EMR service supposed to travel any further east ? Will this terminal station have a trans dimensional teleport mechanism at the buffer stops ?

An alternative, assuming Deansgate heavy rail would be closed and replaced by a pedestrian connection for the trams from the western end of an expanded Oxford Road, and that Metrolink could be moved to a rebuilt version of the current derelict viaduct, would be to build a line from the CLC, via the viaduct currently used by Metrolink, and then a connection diagonally across Whitworth Street in the vicinity of Albion Street and run into Oxford Road. Or if you wanted to be really ambitious, continue this the whole way to Oxford Road with an expanded viaduct running parallel to and above Whitworth Street, build a chord for eastbound trains coming from Eccles / Ordsall Lane to join this, and achieve 4 tracking for roughly half the Castlefield corridor.

Btw, as most of the buildings immediately south of the Castlegate corridor between Deansgate and Oxford Rd appear to have been built within the last 20 years or so, it was a colossal error not arranging for a 'railway protection line' to be imposed to.allow a new line to be built south of the existing one.

 

[Chester1]

Interesting idea; would the diversion of services to the new terminal Deansgate platforms be popular with passengers? Are you envisioning all 4tph on the CLC to terminate there?

I think it would be unpopular at the start but would be liked once it opened. I would run all CLC passenger services on it, 2tph fast and 2tph stoppers. It would be a much more reliable service and to a useful city centre location and interchange. The Trafford Park hourly freight service would continue as today.

How is the EMR service supposed to travel any further east ? Will this terminal station have a trans dimensional teleport mechanism at the buffer stops ?

An alternative, assuming Deansgate heavy rail would be closed and replaced by a pedestrian connection for the trams from the western end of an expanded Oxford Road, and that Metrolink could be moved to a rebuilt version of the current derelict viaduct, would be to build a line from the CLC, via the viaduct currently used by Metrolink, and then a connection diagonally across Whitworth Street in the vicinity of Albion Street and run into Oxford Road. Or if you wanted to be really ambitious, continue this the whole way to Oxford Road with an expanded viaduct running parallel to and above Whitworth Street, build a chord for eastbound trains coming from Eccles / Ordsall Lane to join this, and achieve 4 tracking for roughly half the Castlefield corridor.

Btw, as most of the buildings immediately south of the Castlegate corridor between Deansgate and Oxford Rd appear to have been built within the last 20 years or so, it was a colossal error not arranging for a 'railway protection line' to be imposed to.allow a new line to be built south of the existing one.

The demolitions required make any connection to Oxford Road very expensive. There is planning permission for a skyscrapper on the empty plot near the station and it will be built before any rail project would be authorised, blocking the alignment you propose. I am not sure what the benefit would be apart from adding some grade separation in the area. Terminating every CLC service at an expanded Deansgate would remove 3tph from the corridor. I would divert the EMR service to run via the faster Chat Moss route if paths are available, if not then by CLC but calling at Deansgate to provide a consistent service from either part of station). More services through services e.g. from Chat Moss and Bolton could stop at Deansgate to provide links for CLC to onward destinations.

 

[swt_passenger]

On the gradients point, to get the height or depth needed you can share the gradient between the two routes. This is what they did where the Thameslink and Southeastern routes cross over east of London Bridge. I think Southeastern has the greater gradients, it dips under Thameslink, but the Thameslink lines also rise in comparison to adjacent levels. Maybe a ratio of 2:1 SE to TL...

 

[B&I]

I think it would be unpopular at the start but would be liked once it opened. I would run all CLC passenger services on it, 2tph fast and 2tph stoppers. It would be a much more reliable service and to a useful city centre location and interchange. The Trafford Park hourly freight service would continue as today.



The demolitions required make any connection to Oxford Road very expensive. There is planning permission for a skyscrapper on the empty plot near the station and it will be built before any rail project would be authorised, blocking the alignment you propose. I am not sure what the benefit would be apart from adding some grade separation in the area. Terminating every CLC service at an expanded Deansgate would remove 3tph from the corridor. I would divert the EMR service to run via the faster Chat Moss route if paths are available, if not then by CLC but calling at Deansgate to provide a consistent service from either part of station). More services through services e.g. from Chat Moss and Bolton could stop at Deansgate to provide links for CLC to onward destinations.

Pending the construction of the ceoss-city tunnel which would make this discussion academic (and we'll see pigs landing on runway 3 at Ringway before a hyper-Tory government spends that sort of money on a Labour-voting city) tge good burghers of Manchester should be given a choice. They can either set aside the land to allow the infrastructure developments which will permit the major long distance rail routes right across the north of England to continue serving the centre of their city. Or this land can be used to build massive speculative blocks of flats which house very little of the local population, and rail routes should be diverted elsewhere. The national transport network cannot continue to be hamstrung by Richard Leese's determination to build a smaller scale Dubai with drearier weather.

I'm glad to see your proposals for the EMR service don't take the 'sod everywhere outside Manchester' approach beloved of a certain element on this forum, but Chat Moss is already crowded, and the switch would remove a valuable fastish connection from Warrington to the nearest large cities (and points further east). Also your 'great-nephew of Manchester Central' terminal station seems to me to remove only 2 TPH from Castlefield, which in any event currently terminate at Oxford Road so aren't as problematic as some other services.

 

[30907]

Re the gradients at Deansgate, keep the current junction for freight and make the flyover emu/dmu only. With the junction as is the flyover also becomes a loop, if needed. A similar situation applies at Hitchen since the flyover was built there.

You could ease the gradient, at considerable cost, by running the connecting line past Deansgate (with a level stretch for the platform) and joining the existing line at the west end of Oxford Road.
In fact, you could put an independent line into P5 and make the new connection reversible, thus increasing capacity further.
However, this assumes the derelict viaduct can carry trams, and I suspect it's worse value for money than Ordsall Lane.

 

[Chester1]

Pending the construction of the ceoss-city tunnel which would make this discussion academic (and we'll see pigs landing on runway 3 at Ringway before a hyper-Tory government spends that sort of money on a Labour-voting city) tge good burghers of Manchester should be given a choice. They can either set aside the land to allow the infrastructure developments which will permit the major long distance rail routes right across the north of England to continue serving the centre of their city. Or this land can be used to build massive speculative blocks of flats which house very little of the local population, and rail routes should be diverted elsewhere. The national transport network cannot continue to be hamstrung by Richard Leese's determination to build a smaller scale Dubai with drearier weather.

I'm glad to see your proposals for the EMR service don't take the 'sod everywhere outside Manchester' approach beloved of a certain element on this forum, but Chat Moss is already crowded, and the switch would remove a valuable fastish connection from Warrington to the nearest large cities (and points further east). Also your 'great-nephew of Manchester Central' terminal station seems to me to remove only 2 TPH from Castlefield, which in any event currently terminate at Oxford Road so aren't as problematic as some other services.

Greater Manchester is not the Labour stronghold it once was. The Tories have 9 MPs now (1 Manchester, 2 Stockport, 1 Wigan, 2 Bolton and 3 Bury). Andy Burnham has the mayorality wrapped up because he wins both first and second preference votes of people who don't vote Labour but the Tories have a stake at parliamentary level now.

My suggestion would remove 3tph by replacing the Airport service with one that terminated at an expanded Deansgate. It would need at least one Airport service that passes through Deansgate to call to provide a connection (e.g. Chat Moss EMU). Removing the Oxford Road terminators would simplify any rebuild of the station. The cheapest option would be to have 2 longer and wider platforms with additional facilities in the area that is now platform 1 and the two tracks next to it (from the southern boundary up to the lift for platforms 2 and 3). Platform 1 is not scheduled for regular use because of lack of disabled access and it would be extremely costly to add it. The corridor with 2 through platforms each at Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly could support 12tph with 3tph terminating at an expanded Deansgate. "Great nephew of Manchester Central" is a reasonable description of what I am suggesting. At the cost of a small amount of car park capacity the CLC could be largely separated from the Castlefield corridor improving the reliability of services on both. A near complete rebuild of the old viaduct (400m long), a new Metrolink stop, 2 platforms and an improved foot bridge would probably cost less than the £700m that Platforms 15 and 16 would cost and produce a simplified lower risk network in central Manchester.

 

[ABB125]

You could ease the gradient, at considerable cost, by running the connecting line past Deansgate (with a level stretch for the platform) and joining the existing line at the west end of Oxford Road.
In fact, you could put an independent line into P5 and make the new connection reversible, thus increasing capacity further.
However, this assumes the derelict viaduct can carry trams, and I suspect it's worse value for money than Ordsall Lane.

That's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of, but I believe platform 5 at Oxford Road is being removed as part of the proposed rebuild (although please correct me if I'm wrong). This could potentially affect the viability of this longer new viaduct.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming you permit the viaduct to be built above roads, not many buildings actually have to be demolished to clear a path through the corridor, especially with the upcoming redevelopment of the University North Campus.

Given the spaghetti nature of the track at the western side of the corridor and the restricted nature of the site, I honestly can't see another way of disentangling everything.

 

[158756]

The metal section of the viaduct is about 400m. If it is not listed then one option would be to demolish most of it and build a new viaduct for Metrolink in a similar style and use the current Metrolink viaduct for heavy rail. Heading west from the metal section there could be a 3 or 4 platform Metrolink stop, then 2 Metrolink and 2 heavy rail tracks on what is currently the car park road and Metrolink tracks. Finally, the current tram stop could be replaced by a 2 platform heavy rail terminus with 2 Metrolink tracks going around the northern edge to rejoin the current alignment. The two heavy rail platforms would be part of a four platform Deansgate Station, with the two halves connected by the footbridge. All regular CLC passenger services could terminate there and not enter the Castlefield corridor. Its a good location in the city centre and would have connections with Metrolink. Deansgate could have regular through services (4tph?) to connect CLC passengers to services to Piccadilly, Airport etc. It would be very expensive but Piccadilly 15 and 16 will cost several hundred million.

If you want to cut off the CLC line from the rest of the network (for passengers anyway) why not go the whole way and convert it to Metrolink/Merseyrail, giving direct connections to the city centre and Piccadilly, and higher frequency? Some of the route might not have the space for trams plus a single line for freight, so that'd need sorting, or alternatively, in the context of a scheme costing hundreds of millions, how much would it cost to close the freight yard?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

If you want to cut off the CLC line from the rest of the network (for passengers anyway) why not go the whole way and convert it to Metrolink/Merseyrail, giving direct connections to the city centre and Piccadilly, and higher frequency? Some of the route might not have the space for trams plus a single line for freight, so that'd need sorting, or alternatively, in the context of a scheme costing hundreds of millions, how much would it cost to close the freight yard?

Quite - Metrolink as far as Warrington Central, Merseyrail EMU from Warrington Central.

 

[randyrippley]

The metal section of the viaduct is about 400m. If it is not listed then one option would be to demolish most of it and build a new viaduct for Metrolink in a similar style and use the current Metrolink viaduct for heavy rail. Heading west from the metal section there could be a 3 or 4 platform Metrolink stop, then 2 Metrolink and 2 heavy rail tracks on what is currently the car park road and Metrolink tracks. Finally, the current tram stop could be replaced by a 2 platform heavy rail terminus with 2 Metrolink tracks going around the northern edge to rejoin the current alignment. The two heavy rail platforms would be part of a four platform Deansgate Station, with the two halves connected by the footbridge. All regular CLC passenger services could terminate there and not enter the Castlefield corridor. Its a good location in the city centre and would have connections with Metrolink. Deansgate could have regular through services (4tph?) to connect CLC passengers to services to Piccadilly, Airport etc. It would be very expensive but Piccadilly 15 and 16 will cost several hundred million.

Demolishing isn't an option because it would be too disruptive to the road system. All traffic entering or leaving the A57M from the west would be blocked. Total chaos for months while the sections were cut, craned out and removed, while building a replacement would take even longer. Simply not viable.
Of course while the work was going on all rail traffic below it would have to be blocked as well - blocking traffic approaching Castlefield from the north and northwest
I've read somewhere that the council have blocked any thought of removing it. Its too weak to use, the only option is to effectively preserve it in aspic and prevent any more holes appearing in it...........somewhere in the last couple of years I've read an online news report of the steps being taken to prevent further decay

 

[Meerkat]

Salford Crescent- wouldn’t you add side platforms but keep Victoria and Piccadilly lines separate until a mile north where the Wigan line veers away and there is space for flyovers and links across?

 

[Meerkat]

Demolishing isn't an option because it would be too disruptive to the road system. All traffic entering or leaving the A57M from the west would be blocked. Total chaos for months while the sections were cut, craned out and removed, while building a replacement would take even longer. Simply not viable.
Of course while the work was going on all rail traffic below it would have to be blocked as well - blocking traffic approaching Castlefield from the north and northwest
I've read somewhere that the council have blocked any thought of removing it. Its too weak to use, the only option is to effectively preserve it in aspic and prevent any more holes appearing in it...........somewhere in the last couple of years I've read an online news report of the steps being taken to prevent further decay

the metal bit doesn’t go over the A57.

 

[randyrippley]

the metal bit doesn’t go over the A57.

true, but the brick arches are in as much a mess as the metalwork and would require extended closures to replace/refurb, while the A57 is the only access for removing the metalwork - unless you could do it by barge down the canal? Is it wide/deep enough there?