How can the proposed Old Trafford development be served by rail?

[Meerkat]

Importantly this isn’t just a new (massive) stadium, it is adding 2m sq ft of floor space that can be residential, employment, and leisure.
They have a fancy new station in the plan, just to the north of the old one I think……but what do you do with it?
AIUI current service wouldn't cope with huge crowds, and does it even have passenger capacity for more inward and outward daily flows?
If you make the service higher frequency there is nowhere for it to go*, and how much can you practicably lengthen the trains (then hitting the barrier of an 8 car train rammed full of fans trying to offload at Piccadilly P13 and 14…..)?

*my crayons want to shift the tram to the northernmost viaduct and use it’s current one to feed a Deansgate rail terminal on the current tram station…….but the National Trust are playing with the spare viaduct and all available space around Deansgate seems to be having a skyscraper built on it!

Is there any solution to this conundrum other than a metro tunnel from the CLC under Deansgate station and on to Victoria?

 

[TheGrew]

I was just thinking about the redevelopment plans for the new Manchester United Stadium and it occured to me it might be a good opportunity to build a new station to replace the existing one that I believe is currently suspended for safety reasons.

A more 'regular' two track station could definitely help supplement the tram provision in the area and enable greater public transport access from the west than currently.

I'm assuming the track in that area will have some rationalisation anyway when the freight terminal is cleared to make way for construction.

 

[poffle]

I think if they were designing a new station. It would be better as a 4 track station so that some trains can pass through whilst others stop.

I presume the station would be primarily to serve the apartments to be built on the site rather than match day traffic. It might actually be closed on match days. I think it may be desirable to have a bit of a walk from stadia to public transport to reduce the surge effect and give space to control entry into stations.

One of the problems with the Castlefield Corridor is that trains are operated by multiple train companies ( Northern, TPE, TFW). Although it is busy in terms of the number of trains, many of these trains are quite small (2/3 cars). The trains are going long distances so Castlefield doesn't govern the sizing of the trains.

Thameslink Core in London and Castlefield in Manchester serve similar purposes as heavy rail corridors through the centre of an urban area but the way in which they are operated is dramatically different.

 

[TheGrew]

I think if they were designing a new station. It would be better as a 4 track station so that some trains can pass through whilst others stop.

I presume the station would be primarily to serve the apartments to be built on the site rather than match day traffic. It might actually be closed on match days. I think it may be desirable to have a bit of a walk from stadia to public transport to reduce the surge effect and give space to control entry into stations.

One of the problems with the Castlefield Corridor is that trains are operated by multiple train companies ( Northern, TPE, TFW). Although it is busy in terms of the number of trains, many of these trains are quite small (2/3 cars). The trains are going long distances so Castlefield doesn't govern the sizing of the trains.

Thameslink Core in London and Castlefield in Manchester serve similar purposes as heavy rail corridors through the centre of an urban area but the way in which they are operated is dramatically different.

I agree having 4 tracks in a 'Hitchin-like" configuration is probably a good shout.

I think having a new station built should be used as an opportunity for a regular (at least hourly!) service to serve the residential development. I do think it should be served on Match Days though, ideally with additional stops added on trains that would typically pass through. I gather one of the main issues with the current station is that, unlike both the Old Trafford, Wharfside, and on the other side of town Eithad Campus tram stops is that the station hasn't been optimally configured for match traffic. Rebuilding it to allow for this would be a prime opportunity. Heck make it long enough for an 11-car Pendolino and extend services from Piccadilly using 13/14 on match days. I fully appreciate pathing won't be easy but it strikes me as too good an opportunity to miss.

 

[Meerkat]

I presume the station would be primarily to serve the apartments to be built on the site rather than match day traffic. It might actually be closed on match days.

There is a 400m plus ”procession” boulevard from the proposed station to the new stadium so I think they definitely intend it to be open. The bulk of the residential will be west enough that Trafford Park station will take a fair bit of the load.
However I don’t see how you can serve the place with frequent enough, and long enough, trains.

 

[The Planner]

There is a 400m plus ”procession” boulevard from the proposed station to the new stadium so I think they definitely intend it to be open. The bulk of the residential will be west enough that Trafford Park station will take a fair bit of the load.
However I don’t see how you can serve the place with frequent enough, and long enough, trains.

Even if you had Crossrail-esque type trains which carry 1500 people per train, I can't see you shifting more than 10-12,000 people per hour at the detriment to everything else around it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

So if MUFC want a nice new stadium with a nice new station, perhaps they can fund platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly to make their new station work?

 

[The Planner]

So if MUFC want a nice new stadium with a nice new station, perhaps they can fund platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly to make their new station work?

Good luck with that.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I would imagine given the increase in capacity, increase in development surrounding the site and reduction in car parking, there will be a need for a significant modal shift towards public transport and material increase in capacity needed. However, I think only a limited amount of this will be provided by increased heavy rail usage. I would imagine a package of measures along the line of the following:

- New heavy rail station with provision for future tram-train conversion of the line;
- Metrolink extension of the Trafford Park line to Port Salford with additional park and ride facilities at stops such as Parkway, The Trafford Centre and The City of Salford Stadium;
- Metrolink line from Salford Quays to Salford Crescent;
- New Generation 60m vehicles to replace M5000s on Altrincham and Bury lines to release these for the new services; and,
- Bee Network match day bus services such as those currently in place to serve the Etihad - https://tfgm.com/man-city/bus-network.

The two Metrolink extensions are already planned and the stadium expansion and regeneration proposals would assist with their business case and the bus network already operates successfully at the Etihad.

 

[childwallblues]

During the off peak rail services on the CLC consist of three services each way hourly. These are two express service running from Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich and Cleethorpes and a stopping service between Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Oxford Road.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd suggest that the best platform configuration would be a single central island, with tracks on either side.

An island station would allow all platform area to be used all the time, even in times when traffic is extremely unbalanced by direction.
Given the inevitably extremely peaky nature of a stadium associated station, this would seem to be a good thing.

I'm not sure if non-stop tracks are truly needed, given the relatively low service density.

I'd suggest that if width is available in the site for such things, it would be better served by making an island platform ~6m wider.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2025 ==

So if MUFC want a nice new stadium with a nice new station, perhaps they can fund platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly to make their new station work?

Platform 15 and 16 would just mean the new layout at Oxford Road becomes the limiting factor instead!

 

[AlastairFraser]

I would imagine given the increase in capacity, increase in development surrounding the site and reduction in car parking, there will be a need for a significant modal shift towards public transport and material increase in capacity needed. However, I think only a limited amount of this will be provided by increased heavy rail usage. I would imagine a package of measures along the line of the following:

- New heavy rail station with provision for future tram-train conversion of the line;
- Metrolink extension of the Trafford Park line to Port Salford with additional park and ride facilities at stops such as Parkway, The Trafford Centre and The City of Salford Stadium;
- Metrolink line from Salford Quays to Salford Crescent;
- New Generation 60m vehicles to replace M5000s on Altrincham and Bury lines to release these for the new services; and,
- Bee Network match day bus services such as those currently in place to serve the Etihad - https://tfgm.com/man-city/bus-network.

The two Metrolink extensions are already planned and the stadium expansion and regeneration proposals would assist with their business case and the bus network already operates successfully at the Etihad.

This sounds sensible. Maybe a Cornbrook heavy rail terminating bay between the CLC and Cornbrook Metrolink (the CLC would have to be slewed to the south to permit this) would be a good idea as well.

 

[Topological]

I'd suggest that the best platform configuration would be a single central island, with tracks on either side.

An island station would allow all platform area to be used all the time, even in times when traffic is extremely unbalanced by direction.
Given the inevitably extremely peaky nature of a stadium associated station, this would seem to be a good thing.

I'm not sure if non-stop tracks are truly needed, given the relatively low service density.

I'd suggest that if width is available in the site for such things, it would be better served by making an island platform ~6m wider.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2025 ==


Platform 15 and 16 would just mean the new layout at Oxford Road becomes the limiting factor instead!

Single island would seem to be the best structure to allow the use of the largest platform area.

If doable, it would be good to have avoiding lines on the outside of the platform lines. The two long-distance trains can then carry on around the outside while the shuttles are loading/unloading. Also reduces the risks associated with a full platform and a non-stop train going past.

 

[Meerkat]

Single island would seem to be the best structure to allow the use of the largest platform area.

If doable, it would be good to have avoiding lines on the outside of the platform lines. The two long-distance trains can then carry on around the outside while the shuttles are loading/unloading. Also reduces the risks associated with a full platform and a non-stop train going past.

Crowds on an island doesn’t sound wise. Side platforms means the main flow (which I assume would be Manchester bound) could be fed by multiple entrances and queues to speed loading.
But I still don’t see where they are going to go that has track capacity, nor how the trains are going to be long enough, nor how Piccadilly 13&14 would cope with them turning up.

 

[Topological]

Crowds on an island doesn’t sound wise. Side platforms means the main flow (which I assume would be Manchester bound) could be fed by multiple entrances and queues to speed loading.
But I still don’t see where they are going to go that has track capacity, nor how the trains are going to be long enough, nor how Piccadilly 13&14 would cope with them turning up.

Whenever I think of the design, I envision that there will be development on top and that the entrances will be from above. The line is a cutting which lends itself to having entrances from above. A series of staircases down onto the island would serve the purpose of being multiple queues. A single accessible queue would be provided in the main entrance and would be the only entrance used on non-matchdays.

Someone does need to come up with a plan on how Piccadilly would handle a rail shuttle. Some will get off at Oxford Road, but the train would need to run to Piccadilly (and onward to complete the terminating process).

It would be unfortunate if it were not possible to create something that works on matchdays.

 

[Meerkat]

It would be unfortunate if it were not possible to create something that works on matchdays.

I really can’t see it being possible - are there enough Castlefield paths for a meaningful shuttle, and where does it go after Piccadilly even if Piccadilly can cope?!

 

[Topological]

I really can’t see it being possible - are there enough Castlefield paths for a meaningful shuttle, and where does it go after Piccadilly even if Piccadilly can cope?!

Used to be Stoke and Macclesfield from memory, although Manchester Airport is another option.

I assume there would need to be some rejigging to send a couple of trains to Victoria (or terminate at Oxford Road if possible) to make things work.

The locals from the CLC route are also a potential sacrificial lamb for this to work.

Someone will need to make a decision about whether they want trains to provide part of the public transport solution. Otherwise, the station just needs to be a standard affair to handle museum visitors etc on non-matchdays.

 

[Meerkat]

My cynical prediction - the developers will build the station as part of their travel plan, but then have it closed or counted advances only on match days…blaming public transport for being unable to provide a decent service.
Think it’s important to compare it to Wembley, which is smaller than the planned OT.
Wembley has the Chiltern line next door with its queuing zone, a short walk down the road is Central with Overground, Bakerloo, and some national rail services, and yet Wembley Park (served by two frequent, high capacity, tube lines) still has a vast queue along Wembley Way on match days.
There’s no way the CLC line can provide a meaningful public transport option, not without a new tunnel through the city centre.

 

[Mikey C]

My cynical prediction - the developers will build the station as part of their travel plan, but then have it closed or counted advances only on match days…blaming public transport for being unable to provide a decent service.
Think it’s important to compare it to Wembley, which is smaller than the planned OT.
Wembley has the Chiltern line next door with its queuing zone, a short walk down the road is Central with Overground, Bakerloo, and some national rail services, and yet Wembley Park (served by two frequent, high capacity, tube lines) still has a vast queue along Wembley Way on match days.
There’s no way the CLC line can provide a meaningful public transport option, not without a new tunnel through the city centre.

The "Northwest" clubs seem to rely far less on public transport than the London ones.

City's Etihad stadium, is currently 53k, and being expanded to 60k, yet is served by a single tram line, or you walk from the centre. Anfield is a 60k stadium with no nearby stations at all.

 

[Meerkat]

The "Northwest" clubs seem to rely far less on public transport than the London ones.

City's Etihad stadium, is currently 53k, and being expanded to 60k, yet is served by a single tram line, or you walk from the centre. Anfield is a 60k stadium with no nearby stations at all.

The London clubs don’t have space for significant car parking, and driving to them is a mare anyway.
Public transport still gets overloaded, despite London levels of provision.

 

[jh64]

Direct Pendolino service to Euston so all the Man U fans can get home quick after the match (or at half time)!

 

[HSTEd]

Crowds on an island doesn’t sound wise. Side platforms means the main flow (which I assume would be Manchester bound) could be fed by multiple entrances and queues to speed loading.
But I still don’t see where they are going to go that has track capacity, nor how the trains are going to be long enough, nor how Piccadilly 13&14 would cope with them turning up.

The main flow will swap between the platform track faces depending on if its before or after the match.

If we assume the presence of a deck over the platform area, as seems to be increasingly typical in new stations, especially ones part of major developments, then we can have as many access points onto an island as we wish.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If we assume the presence of a deck over the platform area, as seems to be increasingly typical in new stations, especially ones part of major developments, then we can have as many access points onto an island as we wish.

Well, as long as we don't intend to wish more than maybe 4. Any form of access down to a platform (stairs, escalator, lift) will need some sort of 'landing zone' from where the people arriving from the access to the platform will disperse: stairs and escalators will take up space along the platform (although I suppose they could go across if the platform was wide enough): lifts don't need much linear length but have a more limited capacity than stairs/escalators. But the number of access points is always going to be limited.

Access to an island platform will always be finite: a side platform could (not necessarily should) have access from the outside world along its entire length.

 

[Meerkat]

The main flow will swap between the platform track faces depending on if its before or after the match.

That’s not really relevant - the issue is a crowd that could push people onto the tracks if it surges, say if they all step back when a train arrives, or the police/paramedics have to get to someone.

 

[Grimsby town]

It's important to keep in mind the timescales involved with the new stadium. There's going to be at least a 5 year construction timeline plus the time needed to create access to any station by demolitioning the existing stadium. Once planning is included, its unlikely the station will be needed until 2035. The upgrade to Oxford Road should have freed up paths for additonal services by that point.

Realistically a new Liverpool to Manchester line is needed to free up capacity on the CLC so it can be converted to either local heavy rail or tram/metro. The existing tram infrastructure isn't going to be able to serve the huge increase in housing sufficiently. There's some scope for doubling up trams but very little capacity for additonal services using existing infrastructure.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's important to keep in mind the timescales involved with the new stadium. There's going to be at least a 5 year construction timeline plus the time needed to create access to any station by demolitioning the existing stadium. Once planning is included, its unlikely the station will be needed until 2035. The upgrade to Oxford Road should have freed up paths for additonal services by that point.

Realistically a new Liverpool to Manchester line is needed to free up capacity on the CLC so it can be converted to either local heavy rail or tram/metro. The existing tram infrastructure isn't going to be able to serve the huge increase in housing sufficiently. There's some scope for doubling up trams but very little capacity for additonal services using existing infrastructure.

The solution may be a branch of the proposed tram-train tunnel under central Manchester, but with a continued underground metro branch to Old Trafford and then across to an interchange at Eccles.
The section of NPR from Liverpool via an upgraded Fiddlers Ferry line to Manchester Airport and Piccadilly would be useful in moving intercity passengers, but it won't really free up traffic on the CLC.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Manchester United's "Wembley of the North" plan hits the buffers. A Guardian article which says that negotiations between Freightliner's owner and the football club are deadlocked over the price for the land occupied by the Trafford Park freightliner terminal. Manchester United’s ‘Wembley of the North’ stadium plan hits the buffers | Manchester United | The Guardian https://share.google/y7qiJSQBrriMzIJ7P

 

[Topological]

Manchester United's "Wembley of the North" plan hits the buffers. A Guardian article which says that negotiations between Freightliner's owner and the football club are deadlocked over the price for the land occupied by the Trafford Park freightliner terminal. Manchester United’s ‘Wembley of the North’ stadium plan hits the buffers | Manchester United | The Guardian https://share.google/y7qiJSQBrriMzIJ7P

This is another example of why major projects in the UK need a bigger vision.

Moving Freightliner helps with paths through Castlefield, hence having major benefits for Manchester. The government should be using some carrots and sticks to encourage the move for Freightliner. Perhaps they are.

Either way there will be a lot of these "negotiation" stories before the stadium is built.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Presumably there was always going to be time lag of several years while equivalent intermodal facilities were established for Freightliner (and DB Cargo/Maritime?) at Parkside and/or Port Salford. That would be necessary before a single shovel was used in anger on any former railway land needed for the stadium and associated developments.

Perhaps Andy Burnham could provide the necessary ‘carrots’ by funding this work up front. ‘Manchester’ could then be paid back by the developers and MUFC later.

 

[Chester1]

Presumably there was always going to be time lag of several years while equivalent intermodal facilities were established for Freightliner (and DB Cargo/Maritime?) at Parkside and/or Port Salford. That would be necessary before a single shovel was used in anger on any former railway land needed for the stadium and associated developments.

Perhaps Andy Burnham could provide the necessary ‘carrots’ by funding this work up front. ‘Manchester’ could then be paid back by the developers and MUFC later.

Manchester United want the stadium finished in 2030 and only want to pay £40-50m for the freight terminal. Neither seems to be anchored in the real world. Freightliner are trying to milk the situation but they do deserve compensation that reflects huge disruption to their business.