• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

We need to talk about Castlefield again.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
6,476
Location
Sheffield
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.

Like I said, we nerd to think big and get serious with major tunnelling.

Alll else that patches up and tackis a bit more onto Victorian surface infrastructure will just proliong the agony.

The engineers who built long canal and rail tunnels below the Pennines and London would be very disappointed to see how afraid we seem to be of carrying forward their work. With alll our technology we seem unable to drive forward projects that would mostly have been achievable 100-150 years ago.

Of course if we hadn't sold off and built over a lot of those Victorian tracks, platforms and sidings more surface improvements could be made - but we did.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,389
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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!

If you want a dedicated Airport shuttle platform, 11 is the obvious one (12 isn't connected to the bridge).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
The engineers who built long canal and rail tunnels below the Pennines and London would be very disappointed to see how afraid we seem to be of carrying forward their work. With alll our technology we seem unable to drive forward projects that would mostly have been achievable 100-150 years ago.

Those engineers didn't have to contend with finding spare land in heavily built up city centres, or dealing with foundations of tall buildings, or modern safety standards, or....
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,104
Location
Great Britain
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.
Part of the advantage of having so many tph from Picc 13/14 to the airport is that the services then stay on the same line. Making the services into terminators and using the main terminal platforms would mean crossing over the P13 line to get in meaning more potential for conflicts.

I agree that I don't see the need for 15/16 personally but I would not be changing many services. The one which I would change is the Liverpool - Crewe to take it back to the pre 2018 service. (Picc-Crewe via airport 1tph and Liverpool to Victoria 1tph).

No paths can be built or freed up unless Picc to Deansgate is 4 tracked and that is 1 hell of a task. All other measures are reliability based as the lines are still restricted somewhere along the way (like Salford Crescent).

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.
I disagree here with most of this. While it may seem more important for more local links to the airport, I would say that the longer distance links are and can be just as important since they can help to keep people on trains from further destinations. Manchester is the 3rd busiest airport in the UK meaning a lot more flights and destinations available compared to the other airports meaning people will travel from further away to use these flights. I firmly believe that some of the longer distance services do a lot of good and should be kept. Chester and North Wales for example, Manchester is the closest major airport and the uptake on the service seems to be very good. TPE services are similarly very well used.

Liverpool via Chat Moss I agree with (shame it was taken away as this would then be an electric train through the core rather than 195s. I think the issue is trying to keep 2 fast trains per hour on the CLC and if you have a Chat Moss to Airport service, where does the service from the CLC go since it can't terminate at Deansgate, Oxford Road is full, Piccadilly 13/14 isn't ideal for terminating, line towards Ashburys is crossing the throat, down to Stockport possible but not much use unless you as it's all diesels under wires or there is some untapped demand from Buxton to Warrington or Liverpool. The only logical place for the CLC fast train is the airport.

Blackpool North makes sense, it has been like that for a while and seems to work well.

The other 2 suggestions I don't overly agree with.


All that said, the Airport is not really the issue. The Airport can accommodate one or two more trains per hour, the issue is really Oxford Road to Deansgate where you are cramming too many trains in. This wouldn't be as bad but you then have trains stopping at Deansgate, you have 2 tph from Oxford Road P5 crossing over to Deansgate P2 which blocks the line. Combine that with a slow moving freight train and you have the chaos which is happening now.
 

CW2

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2020
Messages
2,222
Location
Crewe
OK - and MODS feel free to spin this off as a separate thread if you see fit - if we accept there remains an issue with the number of trains through 13/14 at Piccadilly, and note that a significant proportion of this are small frequent services to Manchester Airport:
What services do we need to run to/from Manchester Airport, bearing in mind the capacity constraints at Piccadilly - Castlefield corridor?
The floor is open for ideas ...
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
....
I think the issue is trying to keep 2 fast trains per hour on the CLC and if you have a Chat Moss to Airport service, where does the service from the CLC go since it can't terminate at Deansgate, Oxford Road is full, Piccadilly 13/14 isn't ideal for terminating, line towards Ashburys is crossing the throat, down to Stockport possible but not much use unless you as it's all diesels under wires or there is some untapped demand from Buxton to Warrington or Liverpool. The only logical place for the CLC fast train is the airport.
....
The simplest arrangement would be to run 2 fast tph from Liverpool via the CLC line, the Castlefield corridor and Stockport to Sheffield, with 1 tph continuing to Cleethorpes and 1 tph continuing to Nottingham and terminating there. They should be a minimum of 4 carriages.

Regarding connectivity to Manchester Airport from North Wales and South Yorkshire, the simplest and quickest way to do this would by coach connections via the M56 from the Airport to Chester and Stockport stations respectively, if connecting in central Manchester is considered unpalatable.
 

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
OK - and MODS feel free to spin this off as a separate thread if you see fit - if we accept there remains an issue with the number of trains through 13/14 at Piccadilly, and note that a significant proportion of this are small frequent services to Manchester Airport:
What services do we need to run to/from Manchester Airport, bearing in mind the capacity constraints at Piccadilly - Castlefield corridor?
The floor is open for ideas ...

I started a thread a long, long, long time ago about this - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-airport-railway-station-discussion-and-ideas.167931/
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
OK - and MODS feel free to spin this off as a separate thread if you see fit - if we accept there remains an issue with the number of trains through 13/14 at Piccadilly, and note that a significant proportion of this are small frequent services to Manchester Airport:
What services do we need to run to/from Manchester Airport, bearing in mind the capacity constraints at Piccadilly - Castlefield corridor?
The floor is open for ideas ...

Ideally for the key political Airport connections....

Something from Liverpool
Something from Central Lancs via Bolton or Wigan
Something from Yorkshire via Huddersfield

But then there'll be a load of connections gained for other reasons, i.e. you need at the very least a couple of trains per hour from Bolton to the Piccadilly corridor...which may as well carry on southwards

Etc.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,711
Location
Leeds
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.

I might be playing Devil's Advocate here, but: would it be better (in the sense of transport in the area as a whole) to have trams running from Piccadilly to Deansgate? If the main (only?) reason to keep Deansgate open is to provide interchange opportunities with the tram network then something has gone wrong elsewhere, given that Pic and Oxford Road are the larger stations with greater transfer potential.

Yes, I realise that you'd need funding for the tram extension, a whole different set of permissions to obtain, and it would take years.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
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.
Pretty sure there isn't the capacity at platforms 1-4? Let's also consider many platforms host multiple trains, which is good and an efficient use of the space, but also makes clear that there really isn't room for much more.
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.
The issue is here is many people coming from the line down through Bolton rely on a connection to Piccadilly to interchange to services towards the Midlands/South, alongside the airport. A once hourly service in this direction doesn't cut it, even from a capacity perspective. Pre-corona, even a six car 331 would struggle to take the demand of passengers travelling through from the Bolton corridor to Oxford Road/Piccadilly.

You can perhaps maintain connections to the airport, but also remember that many passengers want to go to Piccadilly to interchange with other services to London, Sheffield, Nottingham, Crewe, Stoke, Macclesfield, etc,etc...

Those engineers didn't have to contend with finding spare land in heavily built up city centres, or dealing with foundations of tall buildings, or modern safety standards, or....
Yeah, I mean the deaths on construction sites are considerably less now than they used to be. But also, the quality of the infrastructure we are building is much higher. The Victorian infrastructure we currently used has been slowly upgraded over the course of a century, so we may perceive it as being better than it was.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
I might be playing Devil's Advocate here, but: would it be better (in the sense of transport in the area as a whole) to have trams running from Piccadilly to Deansgate? If the main (only?) reason to keep Deansgate open is to provide interchange opportunities with the tram network then something has gone wrong elsewhere, given that Pic and Oxford Road are the larger stations with greater transfer potential.

Yes, I realise that you'd need funding for the tram extension, a whole different set of permissions to obtain, and it would take years.
They do, remember though you still need trains running through Castlefield to bring these passengers to Piccadilly. Plus, having the extra 5 minutes on the train and then another 15 minute crawl through the city centre will make these journeys much longer and less attractive to do via public transport. The walk between 13/14 and the Metrolink platforms is also much longer at Piccadilly.

The only alternative solution to this I see, is to connect Salford Crescent to the Metrolink network, which may be in the plans, but I doubt this will happen until around 2030.

*Again, other solutions to the issues entail spending just as much money, for less service*
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,891
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!
Probably, I think a solution that creates some kind of more dedicated regional rail/commuter system would be good, unless they decide to dip the HSR proposals under the city centre. The issue is that this is a long way off, even if funding becomes available, which it likely won't.

£500m would secure at least the short term future of rail in Manchester and if they got a shift on, could probably be completed in a couple of years at most.

After that, I think the same amount again to also carry out the other proposals people have suggested to ensure longer term capacity can be met. So this involves adding two new platforms at Salford Crescent, adding perhaps a western-facing bay platform at Victoria, fixing up junctions around the whole area, etc. Then, NPR may find it easier to blast a massive tunnel under the city.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
I might be playing Devil's Advocate here, but: would it be better (in the sense of transport in the area as a whole) to have trams running from Piccadilly to Deansgate? If the main (only?) reason to keep Deansgate open is to provide interchange opportunities with the tram network then something has gone wrong elsewhere, given that Pic and Oxford Road are the larger stations with greater transfer potential.

Yes, I realise that you'd need funding for the tram extension, a whole different set of permissions to obtain, and it would take years.

Deansgate is very handy for access to the Castlefield area, and also the city centre (Kendals-ish) area by walking along Deansgate itself (plus the new offices/flats located nearby).

Closing Deansgate would only be palatable if Oxford Rd were extended close enough so that the ramps nearly touch, with a western entrance.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Pretty sure there isn't the capacity at platforms 1-4? Let's also consider many platforms host multiple trains, which is good and an efficient use of the space, but also makes clear that there really isn't room for much more.
There used to be space for them. In the medium-term, platform space could be released in this section of Piccadilly by converting the line to Rose Hill via Reddish to Metrolink.

The issue is here is many people coming from the line down through Bolton rely on a connection to Piccadilly to interchange to services towards the Midlands/South, alongside the airport. A once hourly service in this direction doesn't cut it, even from a capacity perspective. Pre-corona, even a six car 331 would struggle to take the demand of passengers travelling through from the Bolton corridor to Oxford Road/Piccadilly. You can perhaps maintain connections to the airport, but also remember that many passengers want to go to Piccadilly to interchange with other services to London, Sheffield, Nottingham, Crewe, Stoke, Macclesfield, etc, etc...
I agree, but wish to point out that I was only listing the Airport services. It would be appropriate to continue to run a second electric train each hour from Blackpool North via Bolton to Stockport and a suitable destination beyond, such as Hazel Grove, as at present.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
I might be playing Devil's Advocate here, but: would it be better (in the sense of transport in the area as a whole) to have trams running from Piccadilly to Deansgate? If the main (only?) reason to keep Deansgate open is to provide interchange opportunities with the tram network then something has gone wrong elsewhere, given that Pic and Oxford Road are the larger stations with greater transfer potential.
I agree with you there. It only gets 1 more tph than Altrincham and East Didsbury & the Airport both get more tph, so if you still want to keep the connection there, just build a travelator to Oxford Road (I recall a similar idea was proposed during the Picc-Vic days). However, closing Deansgate and changing the interchange to Piccadilly & Victoria would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,711
Location
Leeds
They do, remember though you still need trains running through Castlefield to bring these passengers to Piccadilly. Plus, having the extra 5 minutes on the train and then another 15 minute crawl through the city centre will make these journeys much longer and less attractive to do via public transport. The walk between 13/14 and the Metrolink platforms is also much longer at Piccadilly.

The only alternative solution to this I see, is to connect Salford Crescent to the Metrolink network, which may be in the plans, but I doubt this will happen until around 2030.

*Again, other solutions to the issues entail spending just as much money, for less service*

Not being local, and not knowing the local politics, it seems odd to me that extending the tram closer to Salford Central/Crescent was seen as less desirable than extending to Oldham and Rochdale. Especially having been to Rochdale. But 2030 sounds about right! They might even have built a more handy stop for Manchester Central by then. Wikipedia says that there's a plan to extend to Salford Stadium

Deansgate is very handy for access to the Castlefield area, and also the city centre (Kendals-ish) area by walking along Deansgate itself (plus the new offices/flats located nearby).

Closing Deansgate would only be palatable if Oxford Rd were extended close enough so that the ramps nearly touch, with a western entrance.

Or running the tram past Oxford Road Station so you can catch it from the front door (ish)? Though if Oxford Road was rebuilt, an entrance / exit on the Deansgate side of the station (directly onto Whitworth Street) would work.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,104
Location
Great Britain
The simplest arrangement would be to run 2 fast tph from Liverpool via the CLC line, the Castlefield corridor and Stockport to Sheffield, with 1 tph continuing to Cleethorpes and 1 tph continuing to Nottingham and terminating there. They should be a minimum of 4 carriages.

Regarding connectivity to Manchester Airport from North Wales and South Yorkshire, the simplest and quickest way to do this would by coach connections via the M56 from the Airport to Chester and Stockport stations respectively, if connecting in central Manchester is considered unpalatable.
Could work yes but then the CLC loses it's links to the Airport which I imagine would cause some upset from those passengers.

For north wales/South Yorkshire to the Airport, coaches are an excellent way of getting around but there is an increase in journey time and trains are still preferred to coaches (Chester had 3 coaches per day to Manchester Airport pre Covid and even back when TFW terminated at Picc, people seemed to choose the train over the coach. Coaches are seen similar to buses. Very slow, not very comfy for longer distance and not flexible. This mean that by going as you suggest with coaches, you are basically on a non starter.

Altrincham and Stockport to the Airport would be good RailBus links but then you have to get the relevant companies to agree and I don't think it will be used enough to make it a worthwhile scheme.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Could work yes but then the CLC loses it's links to the Airport which I imagine would cause some upset from those passengers.

For north wales/South Yorkshire to the Airport, coaches are an excellent way of getting around but there is an increase in journey time and trains are still preferred to coaches (Chester had 3 coaches per day to Manchester Airport pre Covid and even back when TFW terminated at Picc, people seemed to choose the train over the coach. Coaches are seen similar to buses. Very slow, not very comfy for longer distance and not flexible. This mean that by going as you suggest with coaches, you are basically on a non starter.

Altrincham and Stockport to the Airport would be good RailBus links but then you have to get the relevant companies to agree and I don't think it will be used enough to make it a worthwhile scheme.
The M56 provides fast access to West Cheshire and North Wales. It is therefore much quicker to travel by road from the Airport to Warrington, Runcorn, Ellesmere Port, the Wirral, Chester and North Wales and therefore little point in promoting/running roundabout train services from the Airport via central Manchester and Newton-le-Willows to these places. Given that train paths via the Castlefield corridor are restricted, it would seem sensible to use them for more useful links to Lancashire, plus a service to Halifax/Bradford/Leeds.

I was not suggesting coaches to South Yorkshire as the Trans-Pennine roads (M62 excepted) are appalling, but a bus link from the Airport to Stockport station. It could be provided simply at minimal cost by diverting existing half-hourly High Peak bus service 199 (Airport-Buxton) via Stockport station (it's hardly off route).

There is minimal demand for public transport from Altrincham to the Airport. The bus service (D&G 288) is subsidised and infrequent, as is the passenger train service on the Mid Cheshire line - without the freight traffic on the section east of the WCML, this line might well have been closed in the 1960s/70s.
 
Last edited:

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,104
Location
Great Britain
The M56 provides fast access to West Cheshire and North Wales. It is therefore much quicker to travel by road from the Airport to Warrington, Runcorn, Ellesmere Port, the Wirral, Chester and North Wales and therefore little point in promoting/running roundabout train services from the Airport via central Manchester and Newton-le-Willows to these places.
Quicker yes, doesn't mean it is preferred though.

I was not suggesting coaches to South Yorkshire as the Trans-Pennine roads (M62 excepted) are appalling, but a bus link from the Airport to Stockport station. It could be provided simply by diverting existing half-hourly High Peak bus service 199 (Airport-Buxton) via Stockport station (it's hardly off route).

There is minimal demand for public transport from Altrincham to the Airport. The bus service (D&G 288) is subsidised and infrequent, as is the train service on the Mid Cheshire line.
The 199 from Stockport station to the Airport still depends on High Peak accepting the agreement and bear in mind that there aren't that many people which benefit from the contract bearing in mind anyone north changes at Piccadilly and most people from the south would change at Crewe or Wilmslow onto the stopper.
I can certainly see your point but the counterargument from a railway perspective is will it be used and is it worth the hassle taking revenue off the railways when the service can be done by changing once a one of the 3 stations mentioned above and that then keeps all the revenue in the railways. Airports with no rail links don't even have RailAir type buses so a rail linked airport you are going to struggle to get an agreement in place.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,104
Location
Great Britain
A VERY interesting proposal has now been circled in the press. Basically build a triangle around Cheadle Hulme to get trains off the WCML and that then links onto the freight line there. Upgrade the infrastructure on the Hazel Grove to Sharston freight line. Then rebuild the old line on old trackbed from Skelton Junction to Carrington then finally linking that to the CLC near Flixton.

The estimated cost including OHLE is put around £400m and apparently Network Rail have said that the cost benefits of doing the scheme with freed up capacity would be £750-£800m

My opinion on this is that it would be a very good scheme and cause very little disruption to existing services while it was being built (unlike a huge Castlefields project), it would keep freight out of quite a few pinch point areas and hopefully either give space for more services or just more punctual ones. Either one works. Further to helping out the Liverpool services, it might be worth noting that there may be potential (path depending) for it to allow more freight and speed up some existing flows between the Hope Valley and WCML. That is because trains could then use this triangle near Cheadle Hulme rather than going via Guide Bridge and Denton.
I think one thing which may has been overlooked though is I think there should be a triangle junction at the CLC so trains from Liverpool can use this line. It shouldn't cost too much extra but certainly brings benefits. If it remains freight only, it opens up freight opportunities to Liverpool from over the Hope Valley. If however it was open for passenger use as well and the speeds were decent, it could prove a valuable tool for diversions and I think it could open up some services towards Stockport from the CLC. I don't think there is a huge market there but it's open for that use.


Full article can be read below or at the following link https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2020/11/12/alternative-proposals-for-manchester-congestion/
Photo was taken from the article linked. I take no credit for it.

An alternative proposal has been tabled to relieve congestion in Manchester’s notorious Castlefield Corridor. The short section of twin-track across the south side of the city centre is running at over capacity, and it is the subject of delays for passenger and freight traffic over a wide area of the North of England. Rebuilding is on the agenda, but at huge cost. Now an affordable proposal has been tabled, which would take pressure off the section, and could be achieved with much less disruption to services.

Ideas have been put forward, backed up by initial planning and feasibility work, to re-route some freight traffic away from the Corridor, and provide diversionary options, initially for the fast-growing intermodal rail freight sector, but also to revive options for other industries to use rail in and around Manchester. Industry sources say that a revived link though the southern suburbs of the city would allow better access to existing facilities and stimulate new flows across the region.

A view of the wider benefits
Jonathan Moser, managing director at specialist consultancy Railfreight Solutions, was approached by national lobby group RailFuture to examine in some detail a proposal to reactivate some of Manchester’s legacy of industrial rail routes, as an alternative to a hugely expensive and disruptive redevelopment through the city centre. “The primary objectives of the scheme are to release capacity along Manchester’s ultra-congested Castlefield Corridor”, he said. “At the same time, the scheme would seek to increase Greater Manchester’s existing container terminal capacity which feeds not only the North of England’s primary business destination but also the wider North West region.”


Jonathan Moser has studied alternatives to Manchester’s congested Castlefield Corridor, made even busier since the opening of the Ordsall Curve.
Moser more than most is aware of the wider implications of unlocking the network around Manchester, and particularly the Castlefield Corridor. He is currently looking at the track layout at Ely, which constrains not only North West destined traffic from Felixstowe, but also that to the Midland and Yorkshire, the three principal destinations for container traffic from the deep sea ports of Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway . “For Felixstowe-North West intermodal traffic, together with the Felixstowe branch, Ely represents one of the most contentious bottlenecks after Castlefield”, he says.

Existing constraints suppressing growth
Working closely with Railfuture over several months, Railfreight Solutions has developed a high level business case for a proposal to provide an alternative route, primarily to the existing Trafford Park terminal, for intermodal trains arriving from the deep sea ports. At the moment, all these flows come through the congested Castlefield Corridor, which they share with a mix of suburban, inter-urban and long distance passenger trains, transiting bulk and intermodal flows, and infrastructure workings. Although only a matter of a just under two kilometres long, the Corridor is a throttle on several lines from the east, and congestion has been exacerbated ever since the opening of the Ordsall Curve, which permits more traffic from the west of the section.


Alternative proposal to alleviate Manchester’s Castlefield Corridor (Graphic: Railfreight Solutions)
The Ordsall Curve, with its stylish bridge, was intended to make cross-city transit possible for the first time, but it has only served to further frustrate operations along the Corridor. Plans have been tabled to add passing loop platforms, possibly at all three intermediate passenger stations, and even to add a double-deck section since additional land is at a premium. The likely addition of HS2 services into a redeveloped Piccadilly station is a headache waiting to happen for rail planners in the area. However, the scheme originally worked up by Railfuture with the necessary business input from Moser relies on reactivating under utilised infrastructure in the south of the city, rebuilding a short section of abandoned line, and three modest sections of new track, totalling little more than three kilometres, to make a new route, completely avoiding conflicting movements along the Corridor. “There is a considerable investment already made by rail freight operators, which is restrained by the congestion on the Corridor”, he says. “This scheme lets all those investments be realised to the full, and more besides.”

Industry is excited
Among the prime beneficiaries would be the Maritime-operated Manchester Euroterminal at Trafford, which Moser believes is operating well below capacity, and the neighbouring Freightliner facility at Trafford Park, currently accessed from the east via the Corridor. A short spur from the west, the most modest of those three new alignments, would radically change the attractiveness of the terminal. Jon Bunyan, the general manager at Freightliner Group, responded positively on social media. “Looks good”, he said. “Hopefully it would be fitted with OHLE to allow freights hauled by AC locos as we do now to Trafford Park.”


Photographer Philip Smart captured this image of the Castlefield Corridor Looking from Manchester Piccadilly towards Oxford Road as two Intermodal Trains pass
Wiring up the project would, as Bunyan alludes, make sense, and play up to the government-backed carbon reduction targets for transport infrastructure and the wider economy. The new route would, admittedly, run though the leafier suburbs of south Manchester and Cheshire. Put that together with the pace of development in central Manchester, and the likely addition of an HS2 station at Piccadilly, and there is still a case to be made for even the more ambitious proposals for the Corridor itself.

Bottom line
The costs of solving the Castlefield Corridor with direct interventions have been estimated into the billions. By comparison, this southern alternative seems a bargain basement alternative. “The estimated broad brush cost of the project, even under the existing pricing regime, would be up to 400 million (440 million euros)”, says Moser, “including full electrification at 25kV”. “Network Rail have put a value of freed up capacity at 750-800 million (830-890 million euros), which would amount to a benefit to cost rail of 4:0.”

The rail freight businesses best placed to benefit from this proposal are all within sight of Old Trafford, but will Manchester be united behind a new freight route through the south of the city? It seems an open goal, and to dismiss it would surely be an own goal by comparison.
 

Attachments

  • Castlefield-updated.png
    Castlefield-updated.png
    301.4 KB · Views: 76

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
A VERY interesting proposal has now been circled in the press. Basically build a triangle around Cheadle Hulme to get trains off the WCML and that then links onto the freight line there. Upgrade the infrastructure on the Hazel Grove to Sharston freight line. Then rebuild the old line on old trackbed from Skelton Junction to Carrington then finally linking that to the CLC near Flixton.

The estimated cost including OHLE is put around £400m and apparently Network Rail have said that the cost benefits of doing the scheme with freed up capacity would be £750-£800m

My opinion on this is that it would be a very good scheme and cause very little disruption to existing services while it was being built (unlike a huge Castlefields project), it would keep freight out of quite a few pinch point areas and hopefully either give space for more services or just more punctual ones. Either one works. Further to helping out the Liverpool services, it might be worth noting that there may be potential (path depending) for it to allow more freight and speed up some existing flows between the Hope Valley and WCML. That is because trains could then use this triangle near Cheadle Hulme rather than going via Guide Bridge and Denton.
I think one thing which may has been overlooked though is I think there should be a triangle junction at the CLC so trains from Liverpool can use this line. It shouldn't cost too much extra but certainly brings benefits. If it remains freight only, it opens up freight opportunities to Liverpool from over the Hope Valley. If however it was open for passenger use as well and the speeds were decent, it could prove a valuable tool for diversions and I think it could open up some services towards Stockport from the CLC. I don't think there is a huge market there but it's open for that use.


Full article can be read below or at the following link https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2020/11/12/alternative-proposals-for-manchester-congestion/
Photo was taken from the article linked. I take no credit for it.
The above, plus reopening the line via Partington to Glazebrook, would provide connectivity to Liverpool, but the CLC line to Liverpool has little extra capacity for freight traffic. However, if part of the old GC line from Glazebrook towards Wigan via Culcheth was reopened to join the Chat Moss line close to the former Kenyon junction, additional connectivity could be provided. The CLC line via Baguley was historically used for a lot of through freight traffic.

The entrance to the freightliner terminal at Trafford Park would need to be redesigned to permit trains to enter from the west and reverse into the yard, and this may be challenging due to possible limitations on the length of the headshunt. The connection from Cheadle Hulme to the old MR mainline southeast of Cheadle Heath would be challenging to construct as the LNW line runs on a viaduct north of Cheadle Hulme station.
 
Last edited:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,685
Nice spin on a third party proposal, NR have given them a ball park figure on the value, not an endorsement or anything else. Unless I am missing something obvious, spending £400 million to get a value of £800 million back isnt a BCR of 4?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
That seems a good idea but how much freight goes through Castlefield? Is it only a couple of trains an hour? The main issue is passenger trains.

At most one path each way per hour. But probably prevents the current corridor being truly optimised for passenger services, and tricky for the signallers to regulate.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,956
Location
York
A VERY interesting proposal has now been circled in the press. Basically build a triangle around Cheadle Hulme to get trains off the WCML and that then links onto the freight line there. Upgrade the infrastructure on the Hazel Grove to Sharston freight line. Then rebuild the old line on old trackbed from Skelton Junction to Carrington then finally linking that to the CLC near Flixton.

The estimated cost including OHLE is put around £400m and apparently Network Rail have said that the cost benefits of doing the scheme with freed up capacity would be £750-£800m

My opinion on this is that it would be a very good scheme and cause very little disruption to existing services while it was being built (unlike a huge Castlefields project), it would keep freight out of quite a few pinch point areas and hopefully either give space for more services or just more punctual ones. Either one works. Further to helping out the Liverpool services, it might be worth noting that there may be potential (path depending) for it to allow more freight and speed up some existing flows between the Hope Valley and WCML. That is because trains could then use this triangle near Cheadle Hulme rather than going via Guide Bridge and Denton.
I think one thing which may has been overlooked though is I think there should be a triangle junction at the CLC so trains from Liverpool can use this line. It shouldn't cost too much extra but certainly brings benefits. If it remains freight only, it opens up freight opportunities to Liverpool from over the Hope Valley. If however it was open for passenger use as well and the speeds were decent, it could prove a valuable tool for diversions and I think it could open up some services towards Stockport from the CLC. I don't think there is a huge market there but it's open for that use.


Full article can be read below or at the following link https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2020/11/12/alternative-proposals-for-manchester-congestion/
Photo was taken from the article linked. I take no credit for it.
Isn't this the proposal that was set out in the RailFuture publication "The Castlefield Problem : A great opportunity for freight" published in April this year, so out in the open for quite a time already? Has the press only just caught up with it?
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
Isn't this the proposal that was set out in the RailFuture publication "The Castlefield Problem : A great opportunity for freight" published in April this year, so out in the open for quite a time already? Has the press only just caught up with it?
Yes! Look back to the OP of this very thread on 21 May.
The RailFuture proposal was extensively discussed/debunked in subsequent posts.
 

CW2

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2020
Messages
2,222
Location
Crewe
Finding multi-million pound solutions to move the occasional freight train out of the way is rather missing the point. By and large the freight trains run punctually and in the same slot every hour. The problem with the Castlefield Corridor is that passenger capacity has been oversold, and TOCs were financially incentivised to run short frequent services, rather than longer less-frequent ones. The demand model tells us that that is the optimum solution, right up to the point where performance collapses and the system disintegrates, then everybody looks at each other in wide-eyed amazement, and the culprits move on to another job and repeat the same mistakes.
There is much that could be done with retimetabling and different financial incentivisation of the TOCs rather than expensive schemes of any hue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top