We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Killingworth]

Diverting Liverpool to Sheffield trains will not be without controversy

Stockport Edgeley - 18th March 2014 - 07.00 to 07.30 hours by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

The route via New Mills and Marple is IIRC used regularly by EMR for empty stock workings to maintain route knowledge in the event of diversions. During the time the service has run from Liverpool to Norwich via the Hazel Grove Chord- two significant commuter passenger flows have arisen from Stockport - to Sheffield and also to Warrington. The Stockport to Sheffield group are fairly easy to identify as they cluster on Platform Zero.

 

[Killingworth]

There's also a flow from Sheffield to Stockport and a number of very vocal commuters from Chinley who lost TPE stops fairly recently. There's a first and last empty stock movement via Marple for route knowledge.

Taking the Hope Valley Northern stoppers away from the Goyt Valley route would be popular in Chinley (and for those to the east wanting to get to Manchester a little more quickly), but not those in places like Marple heading towards the Peak District and Sheffield!

Suggestions of taking the Nottingham-Liverpool via Victoria misses how many from both directions rely on that to get to the Universities, and would make even longer the time taken from East to west of Manchester.

You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all the time.

 

[mwmbwls]

I agree. I think we may have beaten this topic to death for a while. Standing back I feel that we might have over-emphasised symptomatic issues and undervalued the causal issues. We need to see the system as a system - fixing one problem just shuffles the the "pig in the python" to the next blockage point. It is easy to see how this has occurred. It all started with the clever engineering that is the Windsor Link - short stretch of track that facilitated trains from North and South of the conurbation and a much needed station at Salford Crescent. Add to the this the Hazel Grove Chord - another piece of clever problem solving enabling the growth of regional rail services from the East. These were grafted in to existing track layouts that had not changed fundamentally since Phase 1 of the West Coast Main Line Electrification and the savage re-sculpting of the Liverpool to Manchester route to make way for the M602 in the 1960/70s. Decisions made then such as retaining absolute block signalling at Stockport have had long term impacts on overall net performance. The decision to pair tracks by direction rather than use between Stockport and Slade Lane creatied a set of conflicting movements that was acceptable given the number of trains at the time but that have been overtaken by developments such as the popular Airport Link. The final element was the building of the elegant viaduct linking Victoria to Piccadilly. Systems engineers working in manufacturing have long understood the need for a total design concept involving overall reconciliation of elements to ensure "just in time" flows. So why did Network Rail miss this?

In fact they didn't. As a bean-counter. my Institute used to have a disciplinary code that used the "pause for careful thought" phrase - "Known or ought to have known". As a member of the founding team at London Reconnections, one of our first scoops was a ring side seat seat at the rebuilding of Thameslink. It started as a spiffing Livingstonian wheeze to run passenger trains down a dormant corridor from Smithfield/Farringdon to Cannon Street. It soon became a victim of its own success and it began to suffer and cause congestion on the classic networks north and south of the city. A bold decision was taken to re-engineer the network - in part because of the need to accommodate the rebuilding/repurposing of St Pancras from the CTRL. A lengthy public enquiry followed characterised by opposition as virulent as the HS2 debate. However after a prolonged period of argy-bargy a concept was developed that was breath taking in both scale and in operational simplicity. Looking at my notes I wrote down the words of a PRO - "All we have to do is unravel the Spaghetti". He then when on to explain how St Pancras would be rebuilt with fit for purpose platforms as compared to the originals, Moorgate would be closed and Farringdon rebuilt, a new station to add a further London distributor, rebuilding Cannon Street as a cross river station, the complete rebuilding of London Bridge and finally an aspiration to rebuild East Croydon. He used the phrase "All we have to is unravel the Spaghetti". We were struck by the fact their strategy was essentially simple but ambitious.

And then we watched it blossom before our eyes - Can I recommend my chum - Pedantic pf Purley's latest piece on the rebuilding of East Croydon.https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/a-study-in-sussex-part-15-east-croydon-revisited-again/

The obvious question is why this approach cannot be taken in the North West? Where is the Plan. In fact we already have it. The failure of the system triggered by the timetable change was a clear harbinger of things to come. Confirmation of the inadequacy of the system is contained in the Congested Infrastructure Report. What is recommends is a holistic approach to the Network. It reads like is a cunning plan - because it is. It is the same as "Thameslink" cunning plan. So why is this not happening. There four key elements in major project planning - PEST (Political, Economic, Social and Technical). The Congested Infrastructure report covers the Technical Issues. It is not rocket science - every engineering element is backed by precedents set by Thameslink. The Economic case has to answer the "Field of Dreams" question "If we build it - will they come?" . Well they did for Metrolink - and the Mersey Rail Loop and Link. As in the case of Thameslink - it was clearly recognised that the arrival of High Speed Trains at St Pancras had to met by a step-change in supporting infrastructure. If you look carefully - this is already happening in Birmingham.

So what is holding us back? We are talking of a project that is technically well understood and can profit from past precedents. The economic and social benefits will cascade not only through Manchester but the entire North West hinterland. So is it just nickel and dime Politics?- You might think that. I could not possibly comment.

 

[HSTEd]

Let's say money is no object.

What would our ideal solution for central Manchester Railways look like?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Let's say money is no object.

What would our ideal solution for central Manchester Railways look like?

Long term solution NPR to run parallel to the Liverpool to Manchester line (forget running via Warrington and the airport). Just before the Eccles the line dives into an East-West tunnel (not sure if that is possible with the Chat Moss). East-West underground station at Picerdilly then after the line splits with one branch heading towards Leeds and another tunnelled under the Pennines following the aproximate line of the Wooshead route to link to the NPR spur North of Sheffield. All long distance traffic to be diverted onto NPR using Javelin type stock.

While that is being built build platforms 15/16 at Picerdilly and any improvements necessary at Oxford road plus grade separation of junctions where possible. Electrify all the rail lines from Buxton, Chinley to both Stockpot and via Marple, CLC line via Warrington, line via Atherton to Wigan and Southport and Mileslatting junction to Rochdale and Todmorden. All local services on Castlefiled route using commuter type stock.

 

[edwin_m]

Long term solution NPR to run parallel to the Liverpool to Manchester line (forget running via Warrington and the airport). Just before the Eccles the line dives into an East-West tunnel (not sure if that is possible with the Chat Moss).

The route via the Airport makes use of expected spare capacity on HS2 infrastructure and (unlike the existing services) serves it without having to run any extra trains or force people to change. I'm curious why you'd prefer to build another very costly tunnel route instead.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Let's say money is no object.

What would our ideal solution for central Manchester Railways look like?

Money no object? 4 track Castlefield, Piccadilly 15 & 16, Oxford Road upgrade, 2 new platforms at both Salford stations for services into Victoria, along with 2 west facing bay platforms at Victoria (in the area the Arena didn't take), fix the bottlenecks into Piccadilly from the south, grade separate Slade Lane, build another platform next to the carriage depot at Stockport, sort out the the bottlenecks south of Stockport and install in-cab signalling on all lines in & out of Manchester.

On the High Speed front, any works for NPHR that are needed, a through line for HS2 from Manchester to Wigan and a north facing bay platform at Manchester Interchange to enable the Airport - Scotland services to use that instead.

 

[Killingworth]

Let's say money is no object.

What would our ideal solution for central Manchester Railways look like?

Money is an object, and Mancunian objections to the disruptions caused to construct such a solution would stop it happening in full.

However, assuming the cash was there and the construction could happen by magic tonight and be operational tomorrow morning.

Construct a giant underground circulatory system, far bigger than beneath Liverpool and on a central London scale. All long distance trains to go underground from the outer suburbs maintaining high speeds into the centre. There'd only be cloverleaf split level junctions, no trains having to wait paths to move across another.

Trains from north to south and east to west stopping under both current stations where they'd connect with more local and stopping trains. That should leave more space for freight, although it may be possible to pass that through an enlarged underground network at quieter times.

I look forward to this subterranean network linking to a base tunnel to Sheffield and another to Leeds.

The total length of such tunnelling would still be much less than exists below London (built over 150 years) and it would all be built to modern standards. That would truly transform the north.

But money is an object so I have to go back to my first paragraph.

Tunnelling isn't cheap and it's massively disruptive. I'm watching progress on the Great Himalyan Railway as it slowly inches forward to connect Kashmir with the rest of India. There's an interesting video about tunnelling that makes good viewing. If you have the time the full explanation of the line will take half an hour to digest.

OK, tunnelling under Manchester is a very different proposition, but first it needs the vision to get started. Curiously there may be a political similarity. Kashmir is rather more anti-Delhi policies than the north is against London! At least any construction here doesn't have to build in serious anti-terrorism and earthquake measures!

Dreams and fantasies over. Back to the real world.

 

[PR1Berske]

Let's say money is no object.

What would our ideal solution for central Manchester Railways look like?

1. Bring Metrolink and regional railways into some kind of better aligned, better focused, more in-tune co-operation. No, there may never be hard- or light-rail into Leigh, but there are other suburban outcrops in Gtr Manchester where a balance between the two different modes could be better utilised. The Salford/Manchester boundary is tight and, on the ground, hardly noticeable. On the railways, however, Salford gets a fairly rum deal. It doesn't have to be this way. Which is why...

2. P15/16 and Salford Central's platforms should be realised to allow for much greater opportunities both intra-regionally and hyper-locally. Salford Crescent as a Metrolink stop along the way into Manchester 'proper' is being discussed elsewhere and when taken alongside heavy rail improvements, creates a much more rounded, responsive public transport system.

3. Use Victoria. Actually use it. Don't treat Victoria as though its the second step-child of a dysfunctional family. For one thing, modernise the station from top to bottom: revamp every inch, particularly the through platforms, so it resembles a proper, functional, useful interchange station which allows for movement from intra-regional expresses to local stoppers, without passengers feeling as though they're hidden away in a dingy shed. (Yes, it is a dingy shed but still....).

4. Slade Lane junction. We all say it, and this forum is full of suggestions and ideas. It's a problem, and with increasing services in both directions, and pressure on the regional network from all directions meeting there, it requires serious, focused, expensive improvement. Flyover, separation, more investment: whatever it takes, take it.

 

[daodao]

The number one priority is to remove all TPE and TfW services from the Castlefield corridor. That by itself would make a major contribution to solving the problem. Fancy infrastructure solutions are not needed, just a turnback siding east of Victoria to allow the Scotch and North Welsh services to terminate there. The TPE services from Leeds not running west of Manchester should be diverted via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly, as they previously did.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The route via the Airport makes use of expected spare capacity on HS2 infrastructure and (unlike the existing services) serves it without having to run any extra trains or force people to change. I'm curious why you'd prefer to build another very costly tunnel route instead.

The idea is based on this Greengauge 21 report

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

The benefits listed in the report are

This proposal is illustrated below. It is an approach that saves cost outlay and enhances connectivity benefits. It is designed to separate out longer distance non-stopping services from shorter-distance city region services. Specifically, it:

(i) maximises connectivity benefits with shorter Manchester-Liverpool journey times over a more direct (upgraded existing) route than is achieved with the current hybrid HS2 Phase2b/NPR plan

(ii) reduces the costs of achieving this part of the integrated plan. The new high-speed NPR connection from the HS2 Manchester Airport station west via Warrington and onwards to Liverpool would be scrapped

(iii) accelerates delivery of private sector regeneration investment around Manchester Piccadilly station which would be pre-prepared for new high-speed lines arriving later (Phase 2b and trans-Pennine NPR)

(iv) provides Manchester with a through high-speed station so that high-speed services such as Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland can be operated

(v) creates the scope for an expanded Manchester city-region rail network, with at its core an established ‘Picc-Vic’ link freed of conflicting services offering Thameslink style high- frequency capabilities

(vi) adds capacity at Manchester Piccadilly to accommodate HS2 Phase1/2a services in new low-level platforms capable of taking 400m trains (without which HS2 trains would be constrained to short formation 200m train lengths until Phase 2b is built – a most unsatisfactory reduction in seating capacity compared with the existing Pendolino service)

(vii) Leaves free the disused east-west rail alignment through Warrington Bank Quay (low level) for a lower-cost line re-instatement in this corridor that could serve a useful purpose of re-establishing local rail services for Warrington and help open up housing development at Fiddlers Ferry and other locations.

The difference being I would continue NPR via a tunnel under the Pennines to a junction onto the loop North of Sheffield rather than running via the Hope valley as proposed. This would allow Nottingham, Sheffield Manchester via the Eastern branch of HS2 and NPR.

 

[Jozhua]

I don't think the plan was to build four tracks all the way through the corridor, but to add two new platforms at Piccadilly, where there is plenty of space for it and to make sure all four through platforms at Oxford Rd can actually take scheduled trains.

Ultimately being able to board passengers simultaneously and while the freights roll through will make a big difference, even if it's still a tad dodgy moving through the small bits of double track between Piccadilly and Oxford Rd. Ultimately I think dwells are the worst issue.

Deansgate may be somewhat of a bottleneck, but it's probably the most useful interchange with Metrolink on the corridor, especially for those headed to say the Trafford Centre or down to Chorlton.

 

[CW2]

I don't think the plan was to build four tracks all the way through the corridor, but to add two new platforms at Piccadilly, where there is plenty of space for it and to make sure all four through platforms at Oxford Rd can actually take scheduled trains.

Ultimately being able to board passengers simultaneously and while the freights roll through will make a big difference, even if it's still a tad dodgy moving through the small bits of double track between Piccadilly and Oxford Rd. Ultimately I think dwells are the worst issue.

Deansgate may be somewhat of a bottleneck, but it's probably the most useful interchange with Metrolink on the corridor, especially for those headed to say the Trafford Centre or down to Chorlton.

Agreed. If capacity existed there would be a good case for more trains to call at Deansgate as the interchange with Metrolink there is crucial. The capacity-driven viewpoint of "just stop calling at Deansgate" is not tenable.

 

[edwin_m]

(i) maximises connectivity benefits with shorter Manchester-Liverpool journey times over a more direct (upgraded existing) route than is achieved with the current hybrid HS2 Phase2b/NPR plan

The Chat Moss line has capacity issues already. Upgrading it for higher speeds just makes that worse. And missing the airport and Warrington is hardly increasing connectivity.

(ii) reduces the costs of achieving this part of the integrated plan. The new high-speed NPR connection from the HS2 Manchester Airport station west via Warrington and onwards to Liverpool would be scrapped

But replaced by a costly tunnel from somewhere round Eccles to a huge sub-surface station at Piccadilly. And this denies Liverpool's aspiration for a high speed link.

(iii) accelerates delivery of private sector regeneration investment around Manchester Piccadilly station which would be pre-prepared for new high-speed lines arriving later (Phase 2b and trans-Pennine NPR)

The Phase 2a Manchester leg is not far off being ready for Hybrid Bill. Scrapping it and designing, consulting and agreeing a different solution for Piccadilly would set any HS infrastructure to/in Manchester back by at least five years.

(iv) provides Manchester with a through high-speed station so that high-speed services such as Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland can be operated

What is the point in diverting Birmingham-Scotland services onto a slower route through Manchester, further adding to congestion on the Chat Moss and with the restriction of the Georgian-era Parkside curve? What other useful service could use this through station?

(v) creates the scope for an expanded Manchester city-region rail network, with at its core an established ‘Picc-Vic’ link freed of conflicting services offering Thameslink style high- frequency capabilities

Leaving aside Sheffield services for the moment (see below), replacing today's TPE Leeds services with NPR services via the Airport to Liverpool would do this too, in fact it would do this better because the same train would serve both destinations.

(vi) adds capacity at Manchester Piccadilly to accommodate HS2 Phase1/2a services in new low-level platforms capable of taking 400m trains (without which HS2 trains would be constrained to short formation 200m train lengths until Phase 2b is built – a most unsatisfactory reduction in seating capacity compared with the existing Pendolino service)

The 11-car Pendolino is about 260m long but highly space-inefficient inside. A 200m train with an efficient use of interior space would have about the same number of seats. And getting the benefits of 400m trains earlier assumes that the much more complicated Piccadilly station proposal - and a high speed link to connect to it - are deliverable in similar timescales to the current Phase 2b proposal. I've pointed out above this is a false assumption.

(vii) Leaves free the disused east-west rail alignment through Warrington Bank Quay (low level) for a lower-cost line re-instatement in this corridor that could serve a useful purpose of re-establishing local rail services for Warrington and help open up housing development at Fiddlers Ferry and other locations.

Strikes me as clutching at straws. I'm not aware of any serious proposal to re-open this line to passengers, and west of Warrington the CLC line is only a mile or so to the north. The section east of Warrington isn't much use to anybody, as its route into Manchester has been destroyed. Even if it survived it would be the long way round via Stockport, or a tram.

The difference being I would continue NPR via a tunnel under the Pennines to a junction onto the loop North of Sheffield rather than running via the Hope valley as proposed. This would allow Nottingham, Sheffield Manchester via the Eastern branch of HS2 and NPR.

That's a separate issue to the route taken between Manchester and Liverpool - it's just as easy with the current proposal as the the change you suggest. But the loop "north of Sheffield" has now been moved well to the east of Sheffield - its closest approach to Manchester is somewhere around Conisbrough.

 

[daodao]

The obsession with serving Ringway from afar needs to go. If the long-distance TPE/TfW trains that run through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport are diverted to terminate elsewhere, and the line focusses on regional connectivity (plus an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service that has no easy alternative route), the current problems with the Castlefield corridor would largely disappear. It was never built as a route for long-distance express services.

The freight traffic from Trafford Park could be removed from the Castlefield corridor by rebuilding the ex-GC Wigan line via Culcheth as far as the Chat Moss line, with a westward facing connection to it. This newly reopened spur and the main CLC line to Liverpool South Parkway, could be electrified at the same time, reducing the number of diesel trains on the corridor.

 

[CW2]

The obsession with serving Ringway from afar needs to go. If the long-distance TPE/TfW trains that run through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport are diverted to terminate elsewhere, and the line focusses on regional connectivity (plus an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service that has no easy alternative route), the current problems with the Castlefield corridor would largely disappear. It was never built as a route for long-distance express services.

The freight traffic from Trafford Park could be removed from the Castlefield corridor by rebuilding the ex-GC Wigan line via Culcheth as far as the Chat Moss line, with a westward facing connection to it. This newly reopened spur and the main CLC line to Liverpool South Parkway, could be electrified at the same time, reducing the number of diesel trains on the corridor.

I agree with your comments re Manchester Airport.

The freight terminals at Trafford Park have no west-facing connection, so trains have to depart towards Manchester. Unless you propose rebuilding the freight terminals and their associated rail connections, your proposed link to Chat Moss is of no use.

 

[daodao]

I agree with your comments re Manchester Airport.

The freight terminals at Trafford Park have no west-facing connection, so trains have to depart towards Manchester. Unless you propose rebuilding the freight terminals and their associated rail connections, your proposed link to Chat Moss is of no use.

Thank you for agreeing with my comments about Manchester Airport.

I agree that some additional rail connections would be needed to allow trains to leave the Trafford Park freight terminals to travel west, but these would not be impossible to construct. The freight terminals would not need to be rebuilt, but additional shunting moves would be needed; trains could be reversed using the running line alongside the MUFC halt platform, without fouling the main line.

 

[CW2]

Thank you for agreeing with my comments about Manchester Airport.

I agree that some additional rail connections would be needed to allow trains to leave the Trafford Park freight terminals to travel west, but these would not be impossible to construct. The freight terminals would not need to be rebuilt, but additional shunting moves would be needed; trains could be reversed using the running line alongside the MUFC halt platform, without fouling the main line.

Well, good luck with the planning application to demolish part of Old Trafford football stadium then! There's no space between the running lines and the edge of the stadium, and you would need an 800m long electrified headshunt.

 

[edwin_m]

In the current setup the Airport terminators have to do extra mileage and cause extra network congestion to get there, although it's difficult to see where else they could terminate without spending money on extra facilities in the city centre. However with the NPR line running via the Airport then these calls would be made virtually for free, as they are at Gatwick. If NPR didn't run via the Airport then some extra trains would be needed on either the HS2 or the classic line to serve it.

 

[daodao]

Well, good luck with the planning application to demolish part of Old Trafford football stadium then! There's no space between the running lines and the edge of the stadium, and you would need an 800m long electrified headshunt.

There is no need to demolish the stadium, but the shunting moves would be more complex for trains over 400m long, unless the headshunt alongside the MUFC halt platform was extended under Sir Matt Busby Way, probably requiring that bridge to be reconstructed. I am not particularly advocating removal of the Trafford Park freight traffic from the Castlefield corridor, as use of the corridor by freight could be avoided during rush hours, but it would be one way to do so if this was felt to be necessary.

 

[daodao]

In the current setup the Airport terminators have to do extra mileage and cause extra network congestion to get there, although it's difficult to see where else they could terminate without spending money on extra facilities in the city centre. However with the NPR line running via the Airport then these calls would be made virtually for free, as they are at Gatwick. If NPR didn't run via the Airport then some extra trains would be needed on either the HS2 or the classic line to serve it.

Build an electrified siding east of Victoria for the TfW N.Wales and TPE Scotch services, to allow them to terminate there.
Divert all the TPE services from Leeds not running through to Liverpool via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

Forget NPE - it is completely unaffordable in the current Covid-related financial meltdown affecting the UK.

 

[edwin_m]

Build an electrified siding east of Victoria for the TfW N.Wales and TPE Scotch services, to allow them to terminate there.
Divert all the TPE services from Leeds not running through to Liverpool via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

Forget NPE - it is completely unaffordable in the current Covid-related financial meltdown affecting the UK.

Yes, like I said, extra facilities in the city centre. But you're responding to a point of mine which was responding to someone else querying the NPR route, by suggesting NPR should be abandoned, so it's not really relevant to my point.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with your comments re Manchester Airport.

The freight terminals at Trafford Park have no west-facing connection, so trains have to depart towards Manchester. Unless you propose rebuilding the freight terminals and their associated rail connections, your proposed link to Chat Moss is of no use.

Couldn't you just provide an extra siding in the vicinity of the Trafford Park railway station so that locomotives could run around and haul the train eastwards?
Or jsut propel out of the yard and reverse.

 

[Jozhua]

The obsession with serving Ringway from afar needs to go. If the long-distance TPE/TfW trains that run through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport are diverted to terminate elsewhere, and the line focusses on regional connectivity (plus an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service that has no easy alternative route), the current problems with the Castlefield corridor would largely disappear. It was never built as a route for long-distance express services.

The freight traffic from Trafford Park could be removed from the Castlefield corridor by rebuilding the ex-GC Wigan line via Culcheth as far as the Chat Moss line, with a westward facing connection to it. This newly reopened spur and the main CLC line to Liverpool South Parkway, could be electrified at the same time, reducing the number of diesel trains on the corridor.

Again, we are back to looking at solutions that will take longer and may very well cost more than the "Shovel Ready" Package C works. This solution will only remove one train (admittedly a very long freight) in each direction per hour and will still require reducing service to stop congestion.

In the current setup the Airport terminators have to do extra mileage and cause extra network congestion to get there, although it's difficult to see where else they could terminate without spending money on extra facilities in the city centre. However with the NPR line running via the Airport then these calls would be made virtually for free, as they are at Gatwick. If NPR didn't run via the Airport then some extra trains would be needed on either the HS2 or the classic line to serve it.

Yes, this is the other issue is that there is essentially no-where else to terminate the services in Manchester. Perhaps we can get into knocking down the £100,000,000 arena for some new platforms at Victoria, etc, etc.

Sure, there are other ways of relieving the congestion. But none of them would provide the amount of service for the cost slated for Castlefield Package C.

BTW, support and share my petition if this is of interest, still fairly low numbers...
Support Manchester Piccadilly 15/16 and associated Castlefield improvement works

 

[CW2]

Couldn't you just provide an extra siding in the vicinity of the Trafford Park railway station so that locomotives could run around and haul the train eastwards?
Or jsut propel out of the yard and reverse.

There's no room to provide the extra siding. Propelling out a long intermodal train isn't really an option - you would bring the railway to a complete standstill in both directions for about 10 minutes in every hour, or twice per hour if you also had to propel in. That's not a safe method of working.

 

[markymark2000]

Couldn't you just provide an extra siding in the vicinity of the Trafford Park railway station so that locomotives could run around and haul the train eastwards?
Or jsut propel out of the yard and reverse.

Even if that was doable, where exactly is the train going to go to? It's going to end up clogging up the line via Warrington Central and you end up having to make the loco run around again around Liverpool South Parkway so then the train can continue south.

It's such a shame that we can't find more paths for the freight to run along because from what I have seen, the vast majority of the container flows into MAnchester are full or nearly full and I think that more freight trains could run to Manchester if there were available paths.

 

[daodao]

Yes, this is the other issue is that there is essentially no-where else to terminate the services in Manchester. Perhaps we can get into knocking down the £100,000,000 arena for some new platforms at Victoria, etc, etc. Sure, there are other ways of relieving the congestion. But none of them would provide the amount of service for the cost slated for Castlefield Package C.

i proposed the following much cheaper solutions in post 291:

• Build an electrified siding east of Victoria for the TfW N.Wales and TPE Scotch services, to allow them to terminate there.
• Divert all the TPE services from Leeds not running through to Liverpool via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

 

[daodao]

Even if that was doable, where exactly is the train going to go to? It's going to end up clogging up the line via Warrington Central and you end up having to make the loco run around again around Liverpool South Parkway so then the train can continue south.

In post 285, I proposed rebuilding the ex-GC Wigan line from Glazebrook via Culcheth as far as the Chat Moss line, with a westward facing connection to it. However, I accept that provision of a long enough siding alongside the main CLC line would be tricky for serving the existing freightliner terminal.

 

[Killingworth]

The obsession with serving Ringway from afar needs to go. If the long-distance TPE/TfW trains that run through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport are diverted to terminate elsewhere, and the line focusses on regional connectivity (plus an hourly Liverpool-Sheffield service that has no easy alternative route), the current problems with the Castlefield corridor would largely disappear. It was never built as a route for long-distance express services.

The freight traffic from Trafford Park could be removed from the Castlefield corridor by rebuilding the ex-GC Wigan line via Culcheth as far as the Chat Moss line, with a westward facing connection to it. This newly reopened spur and the main CLC line to Liverpool South Parkway, could be electrified at the same time, reducing the number of diesel trains on the corridor.

i proposed the following much cheaper solutions in post 291:

• Build an electrified siding east of Victoria for the TfW N.Wales and TPE Scotch services, to allow them to terminate there.
• Divert all the TPE services from Leeds not running through to Liverpool via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

Then build Platforms 15 and 16 as dedicated airport shuttle terminal platforms with travelators to other platforms to match?

The only long term quality solution requires a lot of digging beneath Manchester!

 

[daodao]

Then build Platforms 15 and 16 as dedicated airport shuttle terminal platforms with travelators to other platforms to match? The only long term quality solution requires a lot of digging beneath Manchester!

There is no need for new platforms 15/16, which would be remote from the main station concourse. There are 12 existing terminal platforms far more conveniently sited within the main train shed at Piccadilly. One of them could be used to terminate a 4 tph all stations stopping service from the Airport. There is sufficient capacity on the Airport line and Castlefield corridor to accommodate a reasonable number of trains from the Airport to regional destinations in Lancashire and the West Riding. I suggest 4 tph running non-stop from the Airport to Piccadilly platforms 13/14, Oxford Road and Deansgate and then (each hourly) to:

• Liverpool via Chat Moss
• Blackpool North via Bolton and Chorley
• Blackburn via Victoria and Todmorden
• Leeds via Victoria and Todmorden

This would provide the connectivity needed to support Ringway as the main regional airport for North-West England. The current problem is the additional long-distance express services with poor timekeeping that are currently squeezed into the Castlefield corridor. For timetable resilience, these need to be removed.