S-Bahn-Manchester?

[Greybeard33]

If you grade separate at Edgeley (No.1) then the Hazel Grove lines don’t touch the fasts, nor does anything on Castlefield.

It is really Edgeley No.2 Junction (towards Altrincham) that is more in need of grade separation than the No.1 Junction (towards Hazel Grove). The latter carries mainly passenger trains, which clear the junction quite quickly. But the regular binliners from the Denton line often get brought to a stand waiting for a path across the No.2 Junction, with the malodorous tail of the train still in Stockport Platform 1 or 2. Then they takes ages to crawl across the layout, blocking both fasts and the down slow until clear. This inevitably causes delays to passenger services.

In the other direction, the same thing happens in reverse at Heaton Norris Junction, but more frequently. The laden Drax biomass trains and Merseyside binliners use this route eastbound only, as well as the returning GM binliner empties.

 

[43096]

If you grade separate at Edgeley (No.1) then the Hazel Grove lines don’t touch the fasts, nor does anything on Castlefield.

So if you grade separate Edgeley (down Hope Valley to down slow/fast) and Slade Lane (up slow from Castlefield to both up Styal* and up slow to Stockport), then you don't need to rebuild Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme and Stockport remains paired by direction. Ideal solution!

* that enables an up Airport/Styal train to be free of conflict from anything on the down slow from Stockport heading for Piccadilly.

 

[HST43257]

So if you grade separate Edgeley (down Hope Valley to down slow/fast) and Slade Lane (up slow from Castlefield to both up Styal* and up slow to Stockport), then you don't need to rebuild Heaton Chapel or Levenshulme and Stockport remains paired by direction. Ideal solution!

* that enables an up Airport/Styal train to be free of conflict from anything on the down slow from Stockport heading for Piccadilly.

Would having 2 different grade separation locations be wise? Surely best (cheapest) to put all in 1 place.

 

[HSTEd]

I would prefer to abandon the existing diesel rolling stock and buy new very high performance electrodiesel units.
A 195 is high performance only by comparison with a Sprinter, it might as well be a first gen DMU when compared to the 331.

755/3s with the power packs of 755/4s

If the different door locations are a problem then cascade the 331s and buy more 755s.


This would make semi fasts largely redundant by dramatically cutting the travel times on the stopping trains. That cuts several trains per hour out of the requirement.

EDIT:

On the Styal Line I would prefer to just stop every train all shacks between Piccadilly and the Airport, turn it into a defacto metro line using whatever trains are using it.

 

[Ianno87]

It is really Edgeley No.2 Junction (towards Altrincham) that is more in need of grade separation than the No.1 Junction (towards Hazel Grove). The latter carries mainly passenger trains, which clear the junction quite quickly. But the regular binliners from the Denton line often get brought to a stand waiting for a path across the No.2 Junction, with the malodorous tail of the train still in Stockport Platform 1 or 2. Then they takes ages to crawl across the layout, blocking both fasts and the down slow until clear. This inevitably causes delays to passenger services.

Freight trains and the gradients involved in grade separation (in a restricted length) don't go well together.

In the other direction, the same thing happens in reverse at Heaton Norris Junction, but more frequently. The laden Drax biomass trains and Merseyside binliners use this route eastbound only, as well as the returning GM binliner empties.

 

[EastisECML]

Would a Slade Lane fly over carry the Stockport bound slow track over the two fast tracks so approaching Piccadilly the Castlefield viaduct tracks would be paired (merged with the Styal line tracks)? If so that would still leave a conflict when local trains have to get from the Hazel Grove line to the northbound platform at Stockport.

It feels like the simplest thing to do would be to have tracks paired by speed through Stockport with fast tracks on the left (looking towards Manchester) and slow tracks on the right. Meaning trains from Hazel Grove can run alongside fast trains from Crewe and Macclesfield. And then at Slade Lane a fly over would carry those slow tracks over the fast tracks for the Castlefield viaduct. Although there'd probably need to be a dive under south of Stockport for freight trains from Altrincham to be on the right side for the Denton line. It seems like two grade separated junctions are going to be needed whichever way things happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2021 ==

On the Styal Line I would prefer to just stop every train all shacks between Piccadilly and the Airport, turn it into a defacto metro line using whatever trains are using it.

I saw an idea once about turning the entire CLC line from Lime Street to Manchester Airport into an almost self contained metro with four stoppers and four semi fast services per hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would prefer to abandon the existing diesel rolling stock and buy new very high performance electrodiesel units.
A 195 is high performance only by comparison with a Sprinter, it might as well be a first gen DMU when compared to the 331.

755/3s with the power packs of 755/4s

Problem with a 3-section FLIRT is that it's basically 2-car in "normal" unit terms. Could you have a 4-car one with a double power pack perhaps, i.e. end vehicle-power pack-2 coaches-power pack-end vehicle?

On the Styal Line I would prefer to just stop every train all shacks between Piccadilly and the Airport, turn it into a defacto metro line using whatever trains are using it.

Agree there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2021 ==

I saw an idea once about turning the entire CLC line from Lime Street to Manchester Airport into an almost self contained metro with four stoppers and four semi fast services per hour.

That would be bad for connectivity, but is the sort of direction my suggestion to rebuild Victoria into a "proper Hauptbahnhof" for other services would go. I'd suggest it needs a service from the Windsor Link side, though, perhaps Blackpool, plus one from the Ordsall Chord (much as I wish it had never been built), so you would probably be looking at 4tph from each.

 

[HSTEd]

Problem with a 3-section FLIRT is that it's basically 2-car in "normal" unit terms. Could you have a 4-car one with a double power pack perhaps, i.e. end vehicle-power pack-2 coaches-power pack-end vehicle?

Our problem is that a 4-car section one is 80m long, so doesn't really fit with the 3/6 platform lengths we have currently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Our problem is that a 4-car section one is 80m long, so doesn't really fit with the 3/6 platform lengths we have currently.

Yes, I suppose one downside of the FLIRT is that it trades the big benefit of low-floor with those things that would be below the floor being above it instead, thus making sub-optimal use of platform length. In essence the double power pack version of the FLIRT I describe would basically be the same thing as a push-pull LHCS set once you consider the power packs and cab-end electrical kit.

 

[Greybeard33]

Freight trains and the gradients involved in grade separation (in a restricted length) don't go well together.

Indeed, but it would be difficult to make the business case for a flyover at Edgeley if it still left the freights conflicting with everything else between there and Heaton Norris. Can you suggest a viable configuration?

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed, but it would be difficult to make the business case for a flyover at Edgeley if it still left the freights conflicting with everything else between there and Heaton Norris. Can you suggest a viable configuration?

I'd be inclined to say that the current Up/Up/Down/Down is "least worst".

My idea would be to take the Down line from Hazel Grove and fly it over everything to land at what is currently Edgeley No. 2. The Altrincham/Liverpool line instead ties into the 4 tracks Edgeley No. 1 to "go under" the Down Hazel Grove flyover. That way Down Freights from Altrincham towards Denton are at least segregated from 4tph from Hazel Grove.

And the grade separation benefits the busier No. 1 Junction, not the slightly quieter No. 2 (in terms of diverging/crossing moves)

‐-----------------------------

If you were going for Up/Down/Up/Down (with the Western pair being bound for Castlefield), I'd do a similar arrangement but with both Hazel Grove tracks climbing over everything to land at Edgeley No 1.

The Altrincham route would go underneath (ground level) to join the 2 tracks from Cheadle Hulme as "fast" tracks to Piccadilly shed.

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd be inclined to say that the current Up/Up/Down/Down is "least worst".

My idea would be to take the Down line from Hazel Grove and fly it over everything to land at what is currently Edgeley No. 2. The Altrincham/Liverpool line instead ties into the 4 tracks Edgeley No. 1 to "go under" the Down Hazel Grove flyover. That way Down Freights from Altrincham towards Denton are at least segregated from 4tph from Hazel Grove.

And the grade separation benefits the busier No. 1 Junction, not the slightly quieter No. 2 (in terms of diverging/crossing moves)

Hmm. I think you might have to widen the alignment along the Hazel Grove branch from the junction, in order to get the height separation between the up and down lines approaching the flyover. And the Adswood Road overbridge would need raising, affecting adjacent properties. The gradients would have to be gentle enough for the occasional loaded stone train from Buxton. Could need costly CPOs.

And, having spent all that money, you would still have the Mid Cheshire freights crossing both fasts and the Up Slow on the flat between Edgeley and Heaton Norris. Not enough benefit.

If you were going for Up/Down/Up/Down (with the Western pair being bound for Castlefield), I'd do a similar arrangement but with both Hazel Grove tracks climbing over everything to land at Edgeley No 1.

The Altrincham route would go underneath (ground level) to join the 2 tracks from Cheadle Hulme as "fast" tracks to Piccadilly shed.

I think paired by use is a non-starter. Just to the south, where the four tracks merge to two at the flat Adswood Junction, you would have the Up Slow (at least 2tph Northern) intersecting the Down Fast (at least 6tph Avanti + XC + TfW). Plus all the expense and disruption of rebuilding Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme. And the freights would still have to cross the fasts on the flat!

IMO Edgeley No.1 grade separation is a solution in search of a problem. Significant delays are rare here.

 

[HSTEd]

Let's say we can get a high enough performance diesel unit (be it 755 derived or otherwise) to eliminate the semi fasts entirely:

That leaves us with (based on Bletchyites original post):

Services to the west:

• 2tph from Wigan via Bolton (from Southport)
• 2tph from Wigan via Atherton (one terminator, one originating from Kirkby)
• 2tph from Blackpool North via Chorley (15 mins apart from the Southports)
• 2tph from Liverpool Lime St, all stations from Warrington C
• All services call at Deansgate

Services to the east:

• 4ph all stations to Manchester Airport, 1 or 2 of which extend to Crewe
• 4tph via Stockport (calling Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel) but to where - ideas?
  • Hazel Grove?
  • Buxton?
  • Wilmslow?
  • Hope Valley local?

How hard would it be to combine the Blackpool North via Chorley and the Southport trains and have them divide at Bolton or Lostock?

 

[Ianno87]

How hard would it be to combine the Blackpool North via Chorley and the Southport trains and have them divide at Bolton or Lostock?

Pre-Covid, you could have a decent load on a 6 car just from the stations before Bolton....

(Also, Lostock platforms are wrong side of the junction on the Preston route only)

 

[HSTEd]

Pre-Covid, you could have a decent load on a 6 car just from the stations before Bolton....

Well we could always give them 3 trains per hour splitting and still save a path!

(Also, Lostock platforms are wrong side of the junction on the Preston route only)

Oops didn't notice that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How hard would it be to combine the Blackpool North via Chorley and the Southport trains and have them divide at Bolton or Lostock?

Happens in Germany (every S1 train in Hamburg splits at Ohlsdorf for Poppenbuettel and the Airport, for example), but it is a punctuality risk. It could certainly work for Merseyrail if you wanted 4tph to both Chester and Ellesmere Port, but I suspect there are too many conflicts in and around Manchester for it to be reliable.

 

[EastisECML]

From what I can gather (which may not be much) ideally trains from Hazel Grove need to be able to access slow tracks without crossing fast tracks. And at Slade lane those trains then need to be able to line up on Piccadilly through tracks alongwith Styal line trains, again without getting in the way of the fast tracks. Is all of that achievable?

For Castlefield, maybe brutal simplicity is the answer? Limit access to a select few branches on either side, possibly:

Warrington & Liverpool CLC line (4 tph) / Wigan via Swinton (4 tph) / Blackpool via Bolton (4 tph)

Airport via Styal line (4 tph) / Wilmslow via Styal (2 tph) / Wilmslow via Stockport (2 tph) / Hazel Grove, Sheffield... (4 tph)

With a mix of stoppers and semi-fasts including the Liverpool to Nottingham and Manchester to Cleethorpes trains (cut back from the airport and instead starting from Liverpool).

Or perhaps one of those North Western lines needs to be dedicated for Victoria services only? Southport to Leeds and Wigan to Huddersfield for example.

Either way, I think this leaves the Ordsall curve somewhat redundant but I'm not sure I can see what it's supposed to be for anyway? Perhaps for off-peak trains?

EDIT: Would it be workable at Slade lane to have the Stockport slow tracks go over the fast tracks (only the southbound track would need to do that I guess?) but remain separate to the Styal line tracks? That way there would be a six track approach into Piccadilly from Slade lane running as:

Styal northbound / Styal southbound / Stockport slow northbound / Stockport slow southbound / Stockport fast northbound / Stockport fast southbound

With the Stockport slow tracks serving the current two through platforms and the west side of the terminus platforms. And the Styal tracks serving the new through platforms (15-16) before merging with the tracks from 13-14. Would all of those flat crossings be workable?

 

[Purple Orange]

From what I can gather (which may not be much) ideally trains from Hazel Grove need to be able to access slow tracks without crossing fast tracks. And at Slade lane those trains then need to be able to line up on Piccadilly through tracks alongwith Styal line trains, again without getting in the way of the fast tracks. Is all of that achievable?

For Castlefield, maybe brutal simplicity is the answer? Limit access to a select few branches on either side, possibly:

Warrington & Liverpool CLC line (4 tph) / Wigan via Swinton (4 tph) / Blackpool via Bolton (4 tph)

Airport via Styal line (4 tph) / Wilmslow via Styal (2 tph) / Wilmslow via Stockport (2 tph) / Hazel Grove, Sheffield... (4 tph)

With a mix of stoppers and semi-fasts including the Liverpool to Nottingham and Manchester to Cleethorpes trains (cut back from the airport and instead starting from Liverpool).

Or perhaps one of those North Western lines needs to be dedicated for Victoria services only? Southport to Leeds and Wigan to Huddersfield for example.

Either way, I think this leaves the Ordsall curve somewhat redundant but I'm not sure I can see what it's supposed to be for anyway? Perhaps for off-peak trains?

I see the curve as vitally important for developing a city centre metro system. Having thought about this more, it requires a 20 year view to 2040 - no short term plan will really work for this - with associated infrastructure work, plus a heavy removal of long distance traffic. For instance, I’d only have the Castlefield corridor as an extension of the Styal line and Crewe line only, with 12 tph, going to two destinations, creating an X-shaped network. A tunnel for Metrolink services to Warrington too.

 

[EastisECML]

Destinations such as Wigan and Rochdale?

If Metrolink took over the Warrington line, what happens to Liverpool CLC trains to Manchester as well as Liverpool - Nottingham services?

 

[Ianno87]

Destinations such as Wigan and Rochdale?

If Metrolink took over the Warrington line, what happens to Liverpool CLC trains to Manchester as well as Liverpool - Nottingham services?

The suggestion on this forum is that it would only happen after Liverpool-Manchester NPR opens, so there is no need to preserve Liverpool-Manchester services via the CLC route.

 

[EastisECML]

The suggestion on this forum is that it would only happen after Liverpool-Manchester NPR opens, so there is no need to preserve Liverpool-Manchester services via the CLC route.

So in this scenario services from NPR would leave rejoin the existing network in Warrington after Metrolink trains have terminated and serve the stations between Warrington to Liverpool Lime Street?

 

[Ianno87]

So in this scenario services from NPR would leave rejoin the existing network in Warrington after Metrolink trains have terminated and serve the stations between Warrington to Liverpool Lime Street?

No, intermediate stations Warrington-Liverpool would be served by a seperate service, either into Lime Street or an extension of Merseyrail from Hunts Cross.

 

[EastisECML]

No, intermediate stations Warrington-Liverpool would be served by a seperate service, either into Lime Street or an extension of Merseyrail from Hunts Cross.

That seems like it's going to take away a lot of connectivity for passengers either side of Warrington currently served by the line. I.e. no direct train to Liverpool and no direct train to Manchester for anyone outside of Warrington. And that seems like quite a trek for a tram to make, I can't imagine the journey times are going to be all that great?

 

[Purple Orange]

That seems like it's going to take away a lot of connectivity for passengers either side of Warrington currently served by the line. I.e. no direct train to Liverpool and no direct train to Manchester for anyone outside of Warrington. And that seems like quite a trek for a tram to make, I can't imagine the journey times are going to be all that great?

It won’t be an actual tram. It’ll be a light rail train, just as fast as a stopper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It won’t be an actual tram. It’ll be a light rail train, just as fast as a stopper.

Faster than a Pacer without doubt.

 

[Purple Orange]

It does feel like a lot of the proposed initiatives will never come to pass. With all the talk of reshaping the timetable through Manchester and the S+bahn chatter here too, I do wonder how many problems could be solved with a west-facing platforms at Victoria, or even at a new location by Middlewood Locks on a Regent Road.

 

[HSTEd]

In extremis.... how bad would it be to sacrifice Manchester trains to Westhoughton and simply run a Wigan-Bolton shuttle, stopping at Westhoughton instead?
It already has significantly lower use than Daisy Hill.

Then you could do something like

Services to the west:

• 3tph to Wigan via Atherton (splitting to Southport and Kirkby/Terminating)
• 1tph to Bolton (splitting to Blackpool North and Colne at ~20 past the hour)
• 1tph to Bolton (splitting to Blackpool North and Burnley Manchester Road at ~40 past the hour)
• 1tph to Bolton (splitting to Blackpool North and Clitheroe on the hour)
• 2tph from Liverpool Lime St, all stations from Warrington C

3 full length formations to Wigan and Bolton, but also opening traffic options that otherwise aren't available.

What is the actual length of the longest train we can reasonably use on the corridor?
I tried looking up the platform lengths at MCO but its a pain in the neck because of all the signal positions.

Could we have a double 755/4 or is that pushing it too far?

 

[EastisECML]

It won’t be an actual tram. It’ll be a light rail train, just as fast as a stopper.

Are there any examples of these currently in operation anywhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does feel like a lot of the proposed initiatives will never come to pass. With all the talk of reshaping the timetable through Manchester and the S+bahn chatter here too, I do wonder how many problems could be solved with a west-facing platforms at Victoria, or even at a new location by Middlewood Locks on a Regent Road.

While they'd be a bit like Picc 13/14 in terms of walk from the entrance, there is a viaduct abutting against the side of the Arena on the west side that would fit at least 3 terminal platforms of reasonable length. Might not be a terrible idea to build those anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2021 ==

Are there any examples of these currently in operation anywhere?

Sheffield to Rotherham, for one. A tram is basically an EMU. All modern EMUs are faster than 15x overall on a stopping service, maybe not by having a high top speed but by having high acceleration.

 

[Purple Orange]

Are there any examples of these currently in operation anywhere?

If the CLC was electrified, ran through a tunnel in Manchester and then out towards Glossop or Marple, it would likely be a metro like the Tyne & Wear Metro. It could be possible for the Altrincham, East Didsbury or Bury lines to be the same too. There would be dual tram & train operation on the lines outside the city centre, with the train continuing through a tunnel and the tram running on to the surface tram-lines after Cornbrook.

Let’s say a tunnel was built and the CLC was electrified, it could see 5 tph metro plus 1 tph fast between Liverpool, Warrington Central & Manchester, like it is on the route from Middlesbrough to Newcastle via Sunderland.