We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[MidlandMainlie]

A tunnel from east of Eccles through Piccadilly to just before Ashburys. Reinstate fourtrack from Ashburys to Guide Bridge. Fourtrack the Chat Moss, or at least as much as is practical. Fast services go through the tunnel. Local services go through Castlefield.

That is essentially what Greengauge 21 have proposed in their latest report for Northern Powerhouse Rail

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/NIC-Rail-Needs-in-the-North-Call-for-evidence-response-from-Greengauge-21.pdf

 

[Halifaxlad]

Regarding Victoria don't forget you could always reinstate a few platforms further East at Rochdale and terminate services they're.

As for sweetening developers, if HS2 was built in a box then you could give the land above it to the developers as compensation for any site they might have lost. It would only require to tunnel a little bit further.

As for tunneling in the direction of NPHR you assuming it's going via Huddersfield, which currently is unclear.

Yes please elet's get 1000 chinooks and lift the station or arena!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes please elet's get 1000 chinooks and lift the station or arena!

Knock the Arena down. Even as a large city it can't justify two large arenas like that, and the one at Eastlands has had the go-ahead. That will give you a lovely big brownfield site for a proper Manchester North Hbf to the standard of Piccadilly's main trainshed and retail facilities.

 

[HSTEd]

If you have the money to buy up the Arena and demolish it, then you have the money to add comparable capacity to the Picadilly-Oxford Road complex, which is almost certainly a superior choice long term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you have the money to buy up the Arena and demolish it, then you have the money to add comparable capacity to the Picadilly-Oxford Road complex, which is almost certainly a superior choice long term.

The Arena may well close voluntarily if the business is all lost to Eastlands, which I think it probably will be. Then it'd be worth far less.

Adding capacity to Castlefield is still going to be constrained by the 2-track approaches unless you tunnel which would cost much, much more than building a Victoria Hbf.

 

[HSTEd]

Adding capacity to Castlefield is still going to be constrained by the 2-track approaches unless you tunnel which would cost much, much more than building a Victoria Hbf.

It's entirely possible to thread two extra tracks through with only minor demolitions beyond those already scheduled with the abandonment of North Campus.

Its a handful of small-ish buildings versus demolition of a large world famous arena and likely multiple office buildings if you actually want approaches.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Regarding the Arena I have previously thought about how hard it would be to construct a brand new one, possibly larger on the car parks just North of it! Obviously this may not be needed now depending on how well Easlands develops. As for the comments about it being famous, ain't it famous in name ?

I don't think it ill matter too much if it was moved slightly as long as they're is something somewhere called 'Manchester Arena'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The name changes every few years anyway. Some of us still know it as the Nynex!

 

[daodao]

All this talk of underground tunnelling under central Manchester is a load of baloney. It would be far too expensive, and apparently the ground was found to be particularly unsuitable when the Picc-Vic scheme was assessed in detail in the 1970s. There are a number of simpler solutions to the capacity issues on Manchester's rail network and the resulting poor time-keeping and poor quality of heavy rail suburban rail services.

1. Remove all non-Northern long-distance express services from the Castlefield corridor. An hourly Northern Connect Liverpool-Sheffield express service could be retained.
2. All trains serving stations on the Castlefield corridor should have doors that permit rapid alighting/boarding.
3. Provide better access to platform 1 at Oxford Road so that all 4 through platforms there can be used routinely; there is then no need for platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly.
4. Provide 1 or 2 electrified sidings east of Victoria to allow long-distance trains from the west (e.g. North Wales/Scotland) to terminate there.
5. Further electrification, including the CLC line via Warrington Central, the Bolton-Wigan line and the Standedge route.
6. Transfer the ex-GC suburban lines to Marple Rose Hill via Reddish North and to Glossop/Hadfield to Metrolink, running on a street alignment from Ashburys to the eastern end of the Piccadilly "underground" tram station, thus freeing up capacity in the main train shed at the heavy rail Piccadilly station. These would link with existing services to Bury and Altrincham terminating at Piccadilly so extra city centre capacity is not required.
7. Retain a heavy rail route via Hyde to New Mills Central and beyond for goods trains and a local half-hourly suburban service, to run non-stop from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge. The line between Ashburys and Guide Bridge was originally 4 track, so there should be room on this section for parallel Metrolink and heavy rail dual track lines.
8. Divert all current TPE services to terminate in the main train shed at Manchester Piccadilly (other than those proceeding via Victoria to Liverpool via Chat Moss).
9. Use the Ordsall curve solely for services from the Rochdale line to the Airport (every 30 minutes).
10. Provide nearly all suburban stations within Greater Manchester that are to be retained with a minimum half-hourly regular interval service, at least Mon-Sat 0700-1900.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That works. @Bantamzen won't approve, though, as it looks rather like the S-Bahn-Manchester idea I was proposing!

One change to that, though, one of your New Mills suburbans needs to extend to at least Chinley even if you send the main Hope Valley local service via Stockport.

 

[daodao]

That works. @Bantamzen won't approve, though, as it looks rather like the S-Bahn-Manchester idea I was proposing!

One change to that, though, one of your New Mills suburbans needs to extend to at least Chinley even if you send the main Hope Valley local service via Stockport.

I was envisaging that alternate trains on the half-hourly service to New Mills Central would extend to Sheffield to provide an hourly service to Hope Valley line stations, as at present.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was envisaging that alternate trains on the half-hourly service to New Mills Central would extend to Sheffield to provide an hourly service to Hope Valley line stations, as at present.

Makes sense.

 

[Killingworth]

I was envisaging that alternate trains on the half-hourly service to New Mills Central would extend to Sheffield to provide an hourly service to Hope Valley line stations, as at present.

Half hourly stoppers to continue as at present will be fine to satisfy Peak Distict ramblers and Sheffield bound travellers from the Goyt Valley area. There are more than some may imagine (currently greatly frustrated that they can't get out by train in this wonderful walking weather).

From December 2023 or May 2024 there is intended to be an extra fast sevice between Manchester and Sheffield via Stockport, there being no other practical way. Before 15/16 went on indefinite hold it was envisaged to go beyond Piccadilly to who knows where but any ideas of that kind are now dead. A final destination after Sheffield remains unclear. The issue now is capacity through Hazel Grove, Stockport and into an available platform at Piccadilly.

Of course where we are in 12 months time may look very different and any new plans will have to take that into account. Manchester Airport journeys in particular look set to require rather less capacity. Which brings me to the nonsense of providing a Piccadilly-Airport service at the end of routes from Edinburgh, Cleethorpes, Teesside, etc. A dedicated and reliable fast shuttle service every 10/15 minutes from Piccadilly is what's required. That to connect with late running trains from anywhere and everywhere - and those running on time. I used to see quite a few passengers with luggage for the Airport on the Hope Valley Saturday morning services out of Sheffield, happy to change because Northern was a lot cheaper!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course where we are in 12 months time may look very different and any new plans will have to take that into account. Manchester Airport journeys in particular look set to require rather less capacity. Which brings me to the nonsense of providing a Piccadilly-Airport service at the end of routes from Edinburgh, Cleethorpes, Teesside, etc. A dedicated and reliable fast shuttle service every 10/15 minutes from Piccadilly is what's required. That to connect with late running trains from anywhere and everywhere - and those running on time. I used to see quite a few passengers with luggage for the Airport on the Hope Valley Saturday morning services out of Sheffield, happy to change because Northern was a lot cheaper!

I could have written that

I'd look to dedicate platform 11 at Picc. 4tph, dedicated branded 4-car Class 331s with extra luggage racks, all call all stations to improve usage there. Basically like successful, popular Merseyrail and Metrolink, which understand that "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) is a very saleable model. One of the 4tph would continue to Crewe from the Airport calling at all stations.

 

[Killingworth]

I could have written that

I'd look to dedicate platform 11 at Picc. 4tph, dedicated branded 4-car Class 331s with extra luggage racks, all call all stations to improve usage there. Basically like successful, popular Merseyrail and Metrolink, which understand that "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) is a very saleable model. One of the 4tph would continue to Crewe from the Airport calling at all stations.

But that still leaves an issue as to where all the long distance terminating trains can linger if not at the airport! As always we resolve one issue and create another!

Stiffen the sinews, summon the blood, grit our teeth and get digging a Manchester central undergound long distance circulatory link system. Liverpool has a baby one below sea level so being under canals and rivers shouldn't be that big a problem. Just money and time!

 

[Ianno87]

But that still leaves an issue as to where all the long distance terminating trains can linger if not at the airport! As always we resolve one issue and create another!

Stiffen the sinews, summon the blood, grit our teeth and get digging a Manchester central undergound long distance circulatory link system. Liverpool has a baby one below sea level so being under canals and rivers shouldn't be that big a problem. Just money and time!

I maintain that the imbalance of services approaching Manchester from the North and West compared to other directions means that lots of through working to the Airport is the "least worst" option operationally.

Just needs a couple of tactical trains removed from the corridor to make it all work - e.g. Barrow/Windermere not going south of Lancaster, North Wales going to Stalybridge, Cleethorpes terminated in Piccadilly main shed, etc.


Trouble is that inevitably involves pissing somebody or other off disproportionately....

 

[CW2]

A few thoughts on this subject:
- Freight occupies maximum one path per direction per hour. The trains involved are usually relatively long intermodal services, so the low speeds prevalent on the Castlefield corridor prolong the track occupation by the freights. Moving the freights to some other location would not release a huge amount of capacity.
- In contrast to the infrequent long freights, the passenger services are (too) numerous and (too) short.
- Manchester Airport is the busiest UK airport outside of London, so there is a natural demand for direct rail links in all directions.
- The bodged rationalisation of Victoria station resulted in a significant cap on capacity there.
- The Castlefield Curve was an ill-considered piece of infrastructure, with all manner of stakeholders having expectations of faster direct journeys, thwarted by the first contact with reality.

What is needed is a Manchester Masterplan, perhaps along the lines of the Greengauge 21 proposals linked above. It is imperative that timetabling the infrastructure (in whatever shape it end up) is done centrally, rather than leaving it to the "free market" to decide. The "market" solution fills up the infrastructure with frequent 2 or 3 car trains until there's no room for anything else. There needs to be a single guiding mind in charge of it all - with the TOCs foregoing their Firm Contractual Rights of track access and entering into it in a spirit of co-operation.

 

[Senex]

What is needed is a Manchester Masterplan, perhaps along the lines of the Greengauge 21 proposals linked above. It is imperative that timetabling the infrastructure (in whatever shape it end up) is done centrally, rather than leaving it to the "free market" to decide. The "market" solution fills up the infrastructure with frequent 2 or 3 car trains until there's no room for anything else. There needs to be a single guiding mind in charge of it all - with the TOCs foregoing their Firm Contractual Rights of track access and entering into it in a spirit of co-operation.

Yes, of course a Manchester Masterplan is needed, but what's the point unless there is some process for realising its proposals that stops them having to be fought out individually and then approved or not or stopped or not according to the whims of whoever is in charge at Westminster at the time and their tame civil servants? Grayling might have been the worst we can remember, but what he got up to was by no means unique and by no means restricted just to the Tories.

 

[daodao]

I could have written that I'd look to dedicate platform 11 at Picc. 4tph, dedicated branded 4-car Class 331s with extra luggage racks, all call all stations to improve usage there. Basically like successful, popular Merseyrail and Metrolink, which understand that "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) is a very saleable model. One of the 4tph would continue to Crewe from the Airport calling at all stations.

I agree completely. However, there should also be capacity for 4 fast non-stop services per hour from the Airport calling at Piccadilly platforms 13/14 and Oxford Road and extending (each 1 tph) to Liverpool, Blackpool North, Blackburn via Rochdale, Leeds via Rochdale.

But that still leaves an issue as to where all the long distance terminating trains can linger if not at the airport! As always we resolve one issue and create another! Stiffen the sinews, summon the blood, grit our teeth and get digging a Manchester central underground long distance circulatory link system. Liverpool has a baby one below sea level so being under canals and rivers shouldn't be that big a problem. Just money and time!

Re-organisation of services as in my post 99 above deals with the issue of long distance terminating trains. There is no need for expensive underground digging or extra elevated lines as others have proposed.

 

[Killingworth]

I sometimes wonder how the Tyneside Metro ever got the go ahead to drive two new tunnels crossing beneath the very centre of Newcastle, right beside Grey's Monument. Mainline tunnels aren't so different to construct, surely. These things can be done, what's needed is the drive to get such projects started, and to carry them through and built upon.

We need a brand new Crossrail of the north. Greengauge's report should be taken as the start of serious planning of what can and will be implemented. That something won't be exactly what they propose. It could even be more than that - perish the thought!

In the longer term it will give us better value than constantly tinkering with old Victorian surface structures. That tinkering takes ages to plan, and costs far more than it should, not least because it seems to create the next bottleneck or mismatch down the line requiring yet another round of tinkering.

More surface patchwork in Manchester will just prolong the agony. I know, construction of sub city tunnels is also disruptive, but you get something that takes trains away from the central area so much more quickly; just take the train from central Oslo to the airport to see what can be done.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The proposed solution consists of three elements: The closure of Trafford Park Container Depot; A replacement depot on the site of the former Carrington Refinery and a chord between the WCML ( L&NWR in old money) and the Hazel Grove to Northenden link (Midland Railway/CLC)

Why don't they just reverse it at Skelton Junction and send it down the Mid Cheshire Line where's there's a link to the WCML already?

The Arena may well close voluntarily if the business is all lost to Eastlands, which I think it probably will be. Then it'd be worth far less.

First, the Eastlands Arena has to take most of the business away from the Manchester Arena.

 

[Clip]

The Arena may well close voluntarily if the business is all lost to Eastlands, which I think it probably will be. Then it'd be worth far less.

But Arena currently has much better links to get the people who dont live in Manchester out to where they need to be - does Eastlands when a concert finishes at 2300?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Arena currently has much better links to get the people who dont live in Manchester out to where they need to be - does Eastlands when a concert finishes at 2300?

It has Metrolink, which can shift people back to Victoria. OK, you have a 15 minute tram ride on top, but the upside would be them arriving at Victoria in controlled tram-sized chunks. Also potentially better parking for those wanting to drive. So I think on balance given that it would allow Victoria to be rebuilt so it was good at its job and capable of taking more trains from Castlefield it would be a plus.

(There isn't presently a direct Etihad Campus to Victoria service, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be one).

 

[Clip]

It has Metrolink, which can shift people back to Victoria. OK, you have a 15 minute tram ride on top, but the upside would be them arriving at Victoria in controlled tram-sized chunks. Also potentially better parking for those wanting to drive. So I think on balance given that it would allow Victoria to be rebuilt so it was good at its job and capable of taking more trains from Castlefield it would be a plus.

(There isn't presently a direct Etihad Campus to Victoria service, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be one).

Metrolink is all well and good but people want to get out and go home by either bus tram or rail, not have to make unnecessary extra journeys which may mean they miss their train home

 

[Ianno87]

My prediction? Zero chance of the Arena site being returned to railway use.

 

[Clip]

Any ideas of demolishing it now, are, quite frankly, ludicrous.

 

[Purple Orange]

My prediction? Zero chance of the Arena site being returned to railway use.

I would tend to agree because I am coming around to the opinion that two arenas in Manchester will work and Manchester already has four large venues used for music in the city: the arena, Heaton Park, Old Trafford cricket ground and the CoM stadium (three of which are on tram lines outside the city centre). People do travel big distances for a gig and most bands on international tours won’t play every city in the UK, therefore a fifth arena in Manchester will probably see the arenas in Liverpool, Leeds & Sheffield among its primary competition on the basis that people are willing to travel.

The fact that the new arena is out of the city centre is not an issue either. In addition to the three existing venues outside the city centre, we then have the proper Old Trafford itself, MediaCity and the Trafford Centre, where people travel big distances to reach.

Most cities have their arenas located outside the city centre and I see no reason for this one not to work.

In conclusion, Victoria won’t be getting a chance of additional through platforms, unless there happens to be a way of engineering below the arena. On platform 6, what exactly is the other side of the wall? Is it literally the arena? Or does the arena itself sit above that space and something else occupies the area where a possible P7 & P8 could reside?

One potential is for east facing bay platforms where the multi-story car park is (which runs a decent length of the through platforms) or remodelling the existing P1 & P2 to create additional bays, but that depends on how much need there is for more terminating capacity from the east side of the city and what it would be used for.

 

[Purple Orange]

Metrolink is all well and good but people want to get out and go home by either bus tram or rail, not have to make unnecessary extra journeys which may mean they miss their train home

It doesn’t work like that for football grounds or the other three venues Manchester uses outside the city (four including the Apollo). It doesn’t work like for Wembley, London’s o2 arena, or for that fact many cities. So why should it work like that for Manchester?

 

[Ianno87]

In conclusion, Victoria won’t be getting a chance of additional through platforms, unless there happens to be a way of engineering below the arena. On platform 6, what exactly is the other side of the wall? Is it literally the arena? Or does the arena itself sit above that space and something else occupies the area where a possible P7 & P8 could reside?

I believe that, in effect, the wall alongside Platform 6 is pretty much at the back of the tiered seating (i.e. if you go vertically upwards from the other side of it you end up at the very top row of the tiered seating). In other words the Arena 'bowl' is entirely alongside the rail infrastructure, rather than partially on top of it.

 

[Purple Orange]

I believe that, in effect, the wall alongside Platform 6 is pretty much at the back of the tiered seating (i.e. if you go vertically upwards from the other side of it you end up at the very top row of the tiered seating). In other words the Arena 'bowl' is entirely alongside the rail infrastructure, rather than partially on top of it.

So really the conversation needs to go back to how additional bay platforms could be incorporated in to Victoria station, which presents only three options as I see it:

1. Build 2 west facing bays as per Northern Hub;
2. Remodel P1 & P2 to potentially provide an extra one or two east facing bay platforms.
3. Knock down the car park, build up to 4 east facing bay platforms, with a car park (or other building type) on top.

But this comes with the questions:

• What reasons are there for building west facing bay platforms?
• What reasons would there be for building east facing bay platforms?
• Could east facing platforms help create capacity for trains from the west?

Option 1 and 3 probably only has the available space for a 6 car multiple unit at most, while option 2 only has the space for a 4 car train.

The more radical option would be a new station on the edge of the city centre.