Interesting to see people gradually accepting that two additional platforms at Piccadilly aren't the panacea that they used to be assumed as (in fact, they'd only encourage the messy combination of hourly services that strangle Manchester's capacity, e.g. there'd be demands for Bradford to have a service to the Airport).
The problem is that I can't see that a tunnel is going to tick all the boxes that people want to tick either.
I started a thread on this a while ago (
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tunnel-under-manchester-city-centre-where-and-what-for.197419/) and there's not much consensus about what where to have it - would it need to include both "Pic" and "Vic"? Would there also be a station bang in the centre too (as well as serving existing heavy rail stations)? Would it be restricted to only "Metro" trains (in the way that Thameslink's core is efficient because all of the trains have wide doored commuter configuration - same will apply with Crosslink)?
If you build it you need a high frequency service to justify it, but end doored stock at irregular intervals won't work too well.
Still, it's another thing that people will use to complain about how little Manchester gets spent on it, I suppose ...
I'm old enough to remember the days of the Bee Line Buzz Company running around Manchester - it's nothing new (I was a regular Boddingtons drinker in those days too)
I assumed that it was like the Eurostar yellow - intended to comply with UK heavy rail requirements without being as ugly as painting the front yellow with no connection to the rest of the colour scheme (in case Metrolink ever ended up on heavy rail lines at some future stage)
For sure, I think it's a good point about the Piccadilly Platforms. I think it's realising that while they would help, they're not really the optimal solution. Castlefield is still very tight, lots of at-grade junctions, etc. I think 15/16 should be built purely to allow more consistent freight movements and maybe 1-2 extra tph, more operational resiliency, but that should be it.
I think a tunnel would best suit metro/RER service, then free up capacity for regional/IC services on Castlefield. In that case, closing Deansgate would probably be prudent.
NPR is the answer to that (or a new Victoria HBF).
But the consensus view is NPR is at best 20 years away. How do you solve the problem now?
Also I concur with use of the word Metrolink given how many of the rail corridors serve substantial populations outside GM (Chester, Crewe, Liverpool, Southport, Warrington etc)
Calder Valley to south Manchester, not necessarily the Airport. Why should the smaller Southport market get what it wants when we have been denied access to Castlefield despite several promises?
I guess they want to serve the existing routes. It's hard to justify taking Calder Valley stuff down south at the expense of Southport when the infrastructure to facilitate such a pattern has only recently been built. Doesn't change the fact connectivity from places like the Calder Valley to South Manchester and Piccadilly is poor though.
You can’t. The problem can only be solved with a combination of NPR, HS2 and converting lines to Metrolink.
There are no easy, quick, fixes! 15/16 might be the quickest fix, but I don't know whether it would be the best use of focus.
Indeed. In the meantime, there will have to be a simplification of service patterns which will not necessarily be more convenient for everyone.
Unfortunately. Still got to be better than the unreliable mess we are used to. The only other issue is capacity. In the next year, I expect this to begin becoming an issue again. (people will be even less happy about severe overcrowding post-covid).
What is the "problem" to be solved now? In order:
1) A stable timetable
2) Sufficient capacity on all routes
Arguably Option A, B or C, with train lengthening, does this.
The next step is then to analyse:
-Aspirational frequencies on all routes to provide connectivity (e.g. 4tph via Atherton, as an example)
-Aspirations for cross-Manchester connections.
And I don't think those can be solved properly by anything other than something "big ticket" (e.g. NPR or a "S-Bahn tunnel)
Agreed!
I've often thought about how to get a metro system into Manchester.
My current favoured solution is a Copenhagen esque metro style job with box stations, but just running at very high densities to increase capacity.
A metro running 30tph with 39m trains is considerably cheaper than one running 10tph with tube length trains (120m)
(Standard 61x20m box stations)
Automated metro systems like this are the best solution if you're building from the ground up. Especially considering how expensive underground stations are. Systems like the Skytrain still move a significant amount of people and the service frequency decreases journey times a lot.
If such a metro tunnel ever happens I think it will be more like the new Tyne & Wear metro trains, with services connecting the Bury, Atherton, Altrincham, Glossop/Hadfield and Rise Hill lines. Tram trains will share the tracks outside the city centre like the Airport line flowing on to the East Didsbury line and the Middleton, Oldham & Rochdale services running alongside the Bury trains.
Yeah, the beauty of the Metrolink system is the high floors, meaning if you wanted to run some more "heavy rail" style vehicles onto some of the more well-separated lines, you could. High floors also means the trams themselves can carry more people, because the wheel arches aren't obstructing space in the cars.
Keep it simple.
I can't help but think that would just end up another Castlefield.
Yeah, mixing too many services opens you up to a lot of frequent delays. It is generally best to try and keep systems somewhat isolated from each other, to reduce knock-on impacts across the network.
So you're proposing turning regional trains into metro trains. What about service such as Nottingham to Liverpool? Also this'll give TOC's the opportunity to get rid of creature comforts such as decent seats and toilets.
A better option in my view is to have interoperability with Metrolink in Zone 1 so you don't have to create a new S-Bahn and utilise the already existing one.
I'm sure Nottingham to Liverpool and services like it would run on the existing Castlefield corridor. I don't think people are seriously suggesting to "Metro" longer distance trips like to Sheffield, Leeds or Liverpool. Simply move some of the feeder lines (Glossop, Wigan, Bolton, Ashton), alongside the more separated Metrolink lines to tunnels.
Why should freight sit in Crewe for a couple of hours any more than requiring the same of passengers? Time is money.
Passengers are the most time-sensitive as it is.
Exactly - the complications of logistics are far more than "why is this path" not used - especially in dealing with port performance , pathing over other challenging lines - as an example the North London line , North Thameside or the single track sections found around Ely and dare I say it the Felixstowe branch.,and the needs of increasingly "just in time" supply chains. The competition of the road haulage industry is just a bit severe.
I suspect the value to the economy of a well loaded import or export traffic far exceeds that of a 2 or 3 car local or Interegional service.
It's hard to compare them. I think the key issue is the lack of redundancy and circular rail corridors that mean freight traffic doesn't have to be directed through busy city centre corridors.
