We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[BrianW]

Ta both. Sounds awful. I knew the pub was not to be demolished as it's listed. I've vague memories of the scheme from six or so years ago and I remember a bit of a fuss being made about retaining the pub while running the viaduct almost along its guttering(!)

All moot, if the whole route from Deansgate to Piccadilly isn't likely to be quadded as was proposed.

A couple of things-
1.Can someone remind me please- where at Piccadilly are the HS2 trains planned to terminate?
2. Any value in a cross- platform interchange to a route/s giving a tube or Thameslink north-south, through a tunnel?
3. Scope for eliminating/ reducing cross-throat traffic at Piccadilly, eg grade separation?
4. A pub? Will it revive ...
5. While a central park will have value, how about more housing walkable t0 the centre.
Thanks.

 

[Purple Orange]

A couple of things-
1.Can someone remind me please- where at Piccadilly are the HS2 trains planned to terminate?
2. Any value in a cross- platform interchange to a route/s giving a tube or Thameslink north-south, through a tunnel?
3. Scope for eliminating/ reducing cross-throat traffic at Piccadilly, eg grade separation?
4. A pub? Will it revive ...
5. While a central park will have value, how about more housing walkable t0 the centre.
Thanks.

1. To the east side of the current station, next to platform 1, where there are 6 x 400m platforms planned.
2. Probably but I doubt a tunnel will be built
3. That is happening on the HS2 tracks for Leeds bound trains v London & Birmingham bound trains. Not sure about the rest of the station.
4. Yes. People can’t wait to get back to the pub!
5. There are thousands of homes being built in the city centre, thousands have been built in the centre and thousands are planned to be built, plus thousands of new homes in the couple of miles radius outside the city centre too. Circa 70,000 live in the city centre today and it’s expected to be 100,000 by 2025.

 

[Jozhua]

And unaffordable and unnecessary. A cheaper and simpler solution for the ex-GC suburban lines via Reddish to Marple Rose Hill and to Glossop/Hadfield is to convert them to Metrolink, divert them "on street" west of Ashburys and link them to the Metrolink services from Altrincham and Bury currently terminating at Piccadilly.

I am not convinced that travel to city centres will return to pre-Covid levels, with increased office working from home and destruction of high street retail shops. It is therefore desirable to address issues regarding underperforming suburban heavy rail services in a cost-effective manner, so light rail conversion is ideal.

It's not about travel to city centres, it's also about travel through city centres to other destinations. Considering the goals of reducing pollution/congestion in the region, we want more people to be able to use the rail systems to get around.

Frankly, noting that the southern suburban lines can be converted to Metrolink is beyond the point. They are simply a convenient place to through-run to from the North, with obvious added benefits for those communities. Areas like Salford, Bolton, Wigan in Manchester, alongside Calder Valley, Huddersfield need better connections to the destinations Piccadilly provides access to. That's areas in the South of Manchester (e.g. The Airport, Stockport), but also destinations including the East/West Midlands, Wales, South East/West, Northern WCML (scotland, cumbria) and Warrington (all only acessible through Piccadilly or Castlefield Stations).

So considering all of this, that these communities are desperate for acess to these services, you can see not only why Castlefield has become so congested, but why a tunnel under the city, moving some local services under the city, providing direct connections for Salford, Bolton, Wigan, with the option to convert the Bury line into a more metro style service (something that could be useful considering how high ridership is), then it seems rather sensible. This would provide more capacity to facilitate light rail movements across the city centre (Metrolink is already planning a tunnel to deal with heavy traffic of the lines crossing the city centre) for any new routes that may be added.

Perhaps moving some of the WCML north services to Victoria could help (if capacity was increased there), but that still doesn't resolve all the other destinations Piccadilly provides acess to. Maybe completing the Northern Hub could help make services reliable again and help close the gap between Manchester's stations, but I'm skeptical that anything besides building a proper heavy rail solution to the problem will actually go towards resolving anything.

 

[daodao]

It's not about travel to city centres, it's also about travel through city centres to other destinations. Considering the goals of reducing pollution/congestion in the region, we want more people to be able to use the rail systems to get around.

Frankly, noting that the southern suburban lines can be converted to Metrolink is beyond the point. They are simply a convenient place to through-run to from the North, with obvious added benefits for those communities. Areas like Salford, Bolton, Wigan in Manchester, alongside Calder Valley, Huddersfield need better connections to the destinations Piccadilly provides access to. That's areas in the South of Manchester (e.g. The Airport, Stockport), but also destinations including the East/West Midlands, Wales, South East/West, Northern WCML (scotland, cumbria) and Warrington (all only acessible through Piccadilly or Castlefield Stations).

So considering all of this, that these communities are desperate for acess to these services, you can see not only why Castlefield has become so congested, but why a tunnel under the city, moving some local services under the city, providing direct connections for Salford, Bolton, Wigan, with the option to convert the Bury line into a more metro style service (something that could be useful considering how high ridership is), then it seems rather sensible. This would provide more capacity to facilitate light rail movements across the city centre (Metrolink is already planning a tunnel to deal with heavy traffic of the lines crossing the city centre) for any new routes that may be added.

Perhaps moving some of the WCML north services to Victoria could help (if capacity was increased there), but that still doesn't resolve all the other destinations Piccadilly provides acess to. Maybe completing the Northern Hub could help make services reliable again and help close the gap between Manchester's stations, but I'm skeptical that anything besides building a proper heavy rail solution to the problem will actually go towards resolving anything.

Connectivity from the Standedge line to Piccadilly can/should be maintained by running services via Guide Bridge to terminate at Piccadilly. Connectivity to Bolton. Preston and beyond to Piccadilly will be maintained by running some trains via the Castlefield line. Liverpool and Warrington will continue to have services to Piccadilly via the CLC line.

The only major route out of Manchester that doesn't have direct services to Piccadilly is the Calder Valley route. If the Ordsall curve is to be used at all, perhaps 2 tph from Rochdale and beyond could be routed via it, but others have raised objections that the flat crossing of running lines close to Victoria would be disruptive and impact adversely on reliability.

Diverting the ex-GC suburban services via the existing Metrolink city centre tram network reduces the rationale for expensive tunnelling.

 

[LittleAH]

If the Ordsall curve is to be used at all, perhaps 2 tph from Rochdale and beyond could be routed via it, but others have raised objections that the flat crossing of running lines close to Victoria would be disruptive and impact adversely on reliability.

But you've called for TPE services not to use the chord. I don't get your rationale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you've called for TPE services not to use the chord. I don't get your rationale.

TPE services can get to Picc not via the Chord. Calder Valley services can't, and are the only ones that can't.

 

[LittleAH]

TPE services can get to Picc not via the Chord. Calder Valley services can't, and are the only ones that can't.

Yes, but the idea of stripping out TPE services from the chord is to relieve capacity. What's the point in shoving Northern calder valleys in the same place? It's pointless.

 

[Glenn1969]

Guess that depends where you live. Calder Valley have been asking for access to Castlefield for at least 10 years or more and I think link from Vic to Picc is what the Chord was actually built for in the first place. TPE don't NEED to use it to get to Piccadilly. We do

 

[Ianno87]

Guess that depends where you live. Calder Valley have been asking for access to Castlefield for at least 10 years or more and I think link from Vic to Picc is what the Chord was actually built for in the first place. TPE don't NEED to use it to get to Piccadilly. We do

What both routes *need* is a concentration of their services at one central Manchester station, via the fastest possible route, which, in both cases, is Victoria.

From then, the least operationally conflicting route is to send some TPE services onward via the Chord to have the added benefit of serving Oxford Rd/Piccadilly/Airport.

 

[Glenn1969]

TPE passengers from the East can access Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. Calder Valley trains can't. So if only 2tph are going to be sent round the curve they should both be from Rochdale. This may be post 2025 after some kind of Manchester intervention has happened though

 

[Ianno87]

TPE passengers from the East can access Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. Calder Valley trains can't. So if only 2tph are going to be sent round the curve they should both be from Rochdale. This may be post 2025 after some kind of Manchester intervention has happened though

At the moment, that's a non-starter, both because it is a more conflicting move at Victoria, and it pairs DMU operation with the Atherton line.

 

[Glenn1969]

Hence why I said post 2025 after a medium term intervention

 

[30907]

Has anyone looked at the possibility of terminating the CLC stoppers at a new Cornbrook station (a single-platform terminus with interchange to Metrolink)?
This would clear one or two paths through Deansgate (and possibly eliminate the conflicting move out of the Oxford Road bay?)
What are the major flows on the stoppers? - I have only used them offpeak.
To preserve connectivity you might want to add an Urmston stop to one or both of the fasts.

 

[Gareth]

TPE services can get to Picc not via the Chord. Calder Valley services can't, and are the only ones that can't.

One could make a similar argument that the CLC stoppers have no choice but use the Castlefield corridor, yet they're penalised by being forced to terminate at Oxford Road.

 

[HST43257]

One could make a similar argument that the CLC stoppers have no choice but use the Castlefield corridor, yet they're penalised by being forced to terminate at Oxford Road.

Why can’t they run through to, say, Man Airport as stoppers? Platform capacity and Slade Lane are issues I imagine.

 

[Greybeard33]

Why can’t they run through to, say, Man Airport as stoppers? Platform capacity and Slade Lane are issues I imagine.

The Styal line stoppers need to be EMUs. DMUs would be too slow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Styal line stoppers need to be EMUs. DMUs would be too slow.

Another good reason why the CLC needs to be electrified.

 

[LittleAH]

TPE passengers from the East can access Piccadilly via Guide Bridge. Calder Valley trains can't. So if only 2tph are going to be sent round the curve they should both be from Rochdale. This may be post 2025 after some kind of Manchester intervention has happened though

So Calder Valley pax can change and get on the TPE, as they do.

 

[Glenn1969]

Good luck trying to get a seat in a train that already has dozens of people who have had to stand all the way from Huddersfield

 

[Greybeard33]

Good luck trying to get a seat in a train that already has dozens of people who have had to stand all the way from Huddersfield

A substantial proportion of the passengers on a service from Huddersfield will alight at Victoria. And some of the people boarding will be happy to stand for the ten minute journey to Piccadilly. It should not be hard to find a seat in a 5/6-car train if you need one, even when demand eventually recovers to pre-Covid levels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A substantial proportion of the passengers on a service from Huddersfield will alight at Victoria. And some of the people boarding will be happy to stand for the ten minute journey to Piccadilly. It should not be hard to find a seat in a 5/6-car train if you need one, even when demand eventually recovers to pre-Covid levels.

Yes, true. The 3-car Class 185 era was a massive issue, but the coming of the 80x and Mk5s should, finally, have fixed that issue. A doubling of capacity is what was needed, and is near enough what was delivered.

 

[Glenn1969]

Believe 5/6 car trains with 185s were still full Manchester- Huddersfield- Leeds most of the day. Do 80x trains still double capacity?

 

[Greybeard33]

Believe 5/6 car trains with 185s were still full Manchester- Huddersfield- Leeds most of the day. Do 80x trains still double capacity?

Total seats (first+standard):
185 (3-car) 181
Nova 3 (5-car Mk5a) 291
Nova 1 (5-car 802) 342
2x185 (6-car) 362

The intention is that TPE will only use 185s in 6-car double formations in future.

 

[Killingworth]

Total seats (first+standard):
185 (3-car) 181
Nova 3 (5-car Mk5a) 291
Nova 1 (5-car 802) 342
2x185 (6-car) 362

The intention is that TPE will only use 185s in 6-car double formations in future.

Certainly are on South Pennine. Just need passengers!

 

[Ianno87]

Does anyone know when the report will be published on the results of the 3 option consultation ?

Reading what's been posted they want the changes in place by may 2022, this seems highly optimistic with all options have big consequences for the TOCs involved.

Seems highly optimistic with all the the politics involved, too.

 

[Metrolink]

Has the Recovery Taskforce considered sending EMR services from Norwich via Romiley and then up the Phillips park Junctions to Victoria and then via Patricroft to Liverpool. It affects the CLC and Stockport, but if I were to do this then maybe the frequency could be altered to this:

• 1tph Norwich - Sheffield - New Mills (1tp2h) - Reddish North (2tpd) - Manchester Victoria - Patricroft (1tp2h) - Newton-le-Willows - Lea Green - Liverpool Lime St (instead of the existing service)(EMR)
• 1tph Manchester - Romiley - Sheffield Stopper (as per normal)
• 1tph Manchester - New Mills Central Stopper (frequency change)
• 1tph Sheffield - Stockport - Manchester Piccadilly (instead of existing EMR service)(cut short at Stockport if there is no room in Manchester Piccadilly Main Shed)
• 1tph Semi-fast CLC calling at: Urmston, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington Central, Warrington West (instead of existing EMR service)

(All services are operated by Northern unless stated otherwise, and some stops are omitted)

This takes some trains of the corridor allowing for extra local services and connectivity e.g between Sheffield and Wigan/Preston/Glasgow using Victoria, and providing Newton-le-Willows more inter-regional services. It also means that the platforms are less crowded because some of the traffic is diverted via Manchester Victoria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there room on Chat Moss for another fast? It has local services too. There is the danger of just recreating the issues on the CLC on that line instead.

 

[Metrolink]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Apr 2021 ==

Is there room on Chat Moss for another fast? It has local services too. There is the danger of just recreating the issues on the CLC on that line instead.

With my proposal it means 6tph.

 

[Gareth]

Is there room on Chat Moss for another fast? It has local services too. There is the danger of just recreating the issues on the CLC on that line instead.

There was that planned Northern Connect service from Liverpool to Bradford, which hasn't materialised. So, presumably yes.

 

[Ianno87]

Has the Recovery Taskforce considered sending EMR services from Norwich via Romiley and then up the Phillips park Junctions to Victoria and then via Patricroft to Liverpool. It affects the CLC and Stockport, but if I were to do this then maybe the frequency could be altered to this:

• 1tph Norwich - Sheffield - New Mills (1tp2h) - Reddish North (2tpd) - Manchester Victoria - Patricroft (1tp2h) - Newton-le-Willows - Lea Green - Liverpool Lime St (instead of the existing service)(EMR)
• 1tph Manchester - Romiley - Sheffield Stopper (as per normal)
• 1tph Manchester - New Mills Central Stopper (frequency change)
• 1tph Sheffield - Stockport - Manchester Piccadilly (instead of existing EMR service)(cut short at Stockport if there is no room in Manchester Piccadilly Main Shed)
• 1tph Semi-fast CLC calling at: Urmston, Irlam, Birchwood, Warrington Central, Warrington West (instead of existing EMR service)

(All services are operated by Northern unless stated otherwise, and some stops are omitted)

This takes some trains of the corridor allowing for extra local services and connectivity e.g between Sheffield and Wigan/Preston/Glasgow using Victoria, and providing Newton-le-Willows more inter-regional services. It also means that the platforms are less crowded because some of the traffic is diverted via Manchester Victoria.

What does it solve? It wouldn't be a true removal if there needed to a replacement service on the Warrington Central route...which would still need to operate through Castlefield, so wouldn't 'save' a path.