Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[fishwomp]

How are you fitting in 2 stoppers and 2 fasts when a stopping service takes 58 minutes from Liverpool South Parkway to Castlefield? You have sections of absolute block and 6 minute headways. An EMR service takes 34 minutes. For it to not catch up the stopper if that left at xx.00 and gets to Castlefield at xx.58, it would have to pass Liverpool South Parkway 27 minutes later than the stopper at xx.27 to be 3 minutes behind it at Castlefield at xy.01. Your next stopper then goes at xy.30 and gets to Castlefield at xz.28. You need significant improvements to make that work robustly, probably to the requirement of taking 8 minutes out of the stopper. OLE isn't doing that on its own.

So, we'd spend £15bn on a new route to open in 2045, and not have resignalled the line by then, introduced ETCS, wired it..

You still can't do a 1tph all stations as you still end with the same issue, you'll need some sort of skip stop on both services to balance it out whereupon you'll lose some station to station connectivity as a trade off. Either that or do some wacky thing where you split the service and run Liverpool Warrington and Warrington Manchester as separate services hiding in the carriage sidings for a while similar to how the current Liverpool Warrington does now.

Looking from railmaponline.co.uk and also https://www.oldmapsonline.org, I hadn't realized that (a) there still is a siding, mostly two tracks of, to the immediate east of Warrington Central, (b) the south side of the station used to be a loco shed and the alignment was taken by a road...

It'd be way less than £15bn to to open a platform in that siding for the stopper from the east and make it terminate there. There won't be that many intermediate-station-to-intermediate-station travellers - most will be aiming for the big places on the route.

 

[The Planner]

So, we'd spend £15bn on a new route to open in 2045, and not have resignalled the line by then, introduced ETCS, wired it..

As it stands, no. None of that are committed schemes. Wires get talked about and thats it.

Looking from railmaponline.co.uk and also https://www.oldmapsonline.org, I hadn't realized that (a) there still is a siding, mostly two tracks of, to the immediate east of Warrington Central, (b) the south side of the station used to be a loco shed and the alignment was taken by a road...

It'd be way less than £15bn to to open a platform in that siding for the stopper from the east and make it terminate there. There won't be that many intermediate-station-to-intermediate-station travellers - most will be aiming for the big places on the route.

Either that or add two more crossovers to the west of the station and allow bi-di in the platforms.

 

[eldomtom2]

So, we'd spend £15bn on a new route to open in 2045, and not have resignalled the line by then, introduced ETCS, wired it..

Yes, I'd say that talking about building an entirely new line when upgrades to the existing lines to maximise capacity and performance haven't been done is definitely violating the German/Swiss principle of "organisation before electronics before concrete".

 

[Grimsby town]

As it stands, no. None of that are committed schemes. Wires get talked about and thats it.

I think its questionable whether there are many benefits of electrifying the CLC given northern are ordering battery trains. Its probably the perfect route for battery trains and they'll have far better acceleration than a class 150. Unless it can be done in a couple of years and use cascaded emus, electrification is probably better focused on lines like Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds which has higher number of passenger trains and freight.

 

[daodao]

I think its questionable whether there are many benefits of electrifying the CLC given northern are ordering battery trains. Its probably the perfect route for battery trains and they'll have far better acceleration than a class 150. Unless it can be done in a couple of years and use cascaded emus, electrification is probably better focused on lines like Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds which has higher number of passenger trains and freight.

With 4tph on the CLC line, surely electrification is worthwhile, provided that the trains to Sheffield and beyond are run using bimodes. Both ends of the route are already fully wired. Many other lines with lower frequency services, particularly in SE England have previously been electrified.

 

[Grimsby town]

With 4tph on the CLC line, surely electrification is worthwhile, provided that the trains to Sheffield and beyond are run using bimodes. Both ends of the route are already fully wired. Many other lines with lower frequency services, particularly in SE England have previously been electrified.

5 years ago I'd have said it was a no brainer but the lack of progress on electrification and the advances in battery technology certainly make it an edge case now. It's got less services than Rochdale - Victoria currently and the gap in electrification on the Calder Valley line is not far off double the distance of Old Trafford to Liverpool South Parkway.

There's also a number of lines in the east that need doing to allow battery trains to take over from diesel. Hull-Leeds, Sheffield-Leeds are definitely above CLC if politics are left aside.

 

[TomTankEngine]

Not feasible. Traffic is absolutely evil down those roads in the peak (particularly as Kingsway abruptly ends and pours more traffic onto the A6 via Slade Lane). The service would be terribly unreliable.
If you wanted a premetro style tunnel using that alignment to the airport, it's possible, but I'm not sure it would be much cheaper, and it wouldn't necessarily attract that many people off the overcrowded Styal Line.

If it unlocks a cost effective route for both hs2 and Liverpool to Manchester I don't buy that local traffic on an a road is big enough reason to stop national infrastructure.

Kingsway is very wide with spaces for separated trams, multiple road lanes and pavements.

You could reroute traffic or bring in a one way system using one of the parallel roads.

 

[Topological]

If it unlocks a cost effective route for both hs2 and Liverpool to Manchester I don't buy that local traffic on an a road is big enough reason to stop national infrastructure.

Kingsway is very wide with spaces for separated trams, multiple road lanes and pavements.

You could reroute traffic or bring in a one way system using one of the parallel roads.

The problem is when Kingsway ends. There is no easy route for a tram from there. Using Upper Brook Street would follow the A34, but that is not wide enough for a segregated tram. As others have said you can go towards the A6, but the same issue applies.

Giving the capacity used by trains to the North over to higher-speed services from the South seems counterintuitive too. The tunnel has so many advantages and should be built if the will is even half there.

The route planned is absolutely the best that can be achieved to connect Manchester, Manchester Airport and Liverpool.

 

[urbophile]

every 10 mins.. you can by a through rail /bus ticket from some places at least.

Can you buy one at the airport itself, for arriving passengers? It would put me off, having to pay £2 on the bus plus the faff and expense of buying a train ticket, when I could hop on one of several buses (including the fast-ish 500)and do the whole journey to the city centre without changing and without paying extra.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The railway is still fairly low at this point (7m above sea level), and demolishing a road bridge to be replaced with a surface road, however new, is not a huge or difficult endeavor. With an elevated alignment around this area, road layouts might be reconsidered with extra links being punched through an embankment or under a viaduct. This could open up the area to the south of the railway to denser, more valuable development, along with the soap factory site to the west of the WCML, expanding the town around Bank Quay station.

True

The old rail alignment on the western approach is unobstructed, albeit very overgrown, and the viaduct might be reconstructed as necessary, perhaps reusing the abutments and foundations if suitable, likely much cheaper than a tunnel. East of there, I would only use the old alignment for 1km or so to Thelwall where I would diverge to the south-east on the surface to cross the M6 then meet the M56 corridor, avoiding the Lymm area, then broadly following that motorway towards the airport. The trail could be relocated over this 1km length to a new path constructed alongside and a little below the railway on the slope of the wide embankment as it descends from the viaduct, and the trail might be extended across the rebuilt viaduct to the north bank of the canal.

Isn't it worth a tunnel to the edge of the Warrington urban area at least, to avoid the issues with reinstating the viaduct and rebuilding the TPT alongside the HSR line?

I agree that it should be pushed as far as possible in Latchford before a tunnel portal that ensures a tunnel would clear the bottom of the Manchester Ship Canal, but I don't think the viaduct would be that cheap or easy to completely rebuild (especially given the speed and weight of the trains that will be using it and the track forces they involve), plus you avoid the issue of fighting with some of the country's finest NIMBYs.

If it unlocks a cost effective route for both hs2 and Liverpool to Manchester I don't buy that local traffic on an a road is big enough reason to stop national infrastructure.

Cost effective? If you're suggesting using the Styal Line for HS2 services into Manchester, that's crazier than I thought.
The spare capacity released by a HS2/Liverpool to Manchester tunnel would be replaced by spare capacity on the Styal Line for south of Manchester commuters (for which there is significant suppressed demand). There's also limited capacity through Slade Ln Jcn in Levenshulme, where the Styal Line joins the WCML, and that has been estimated to be extremely expensive to grade separate. A new tunnelled approach for HSR is the only way to suitably provide for current suppressed demand and future demand.

Kingsway is very wide with spaces for separated trams, multiple road lanes and pavements.

You could reroute traffic or bring in a one way system using one of the parallel roads.

While Kingsway has room, the roads north of there do not remotely have capacity. The side roads are completely jammed most of the day too, and some have extensive bus operations on that serve thousands upon thousands of people a day, so a premetro tunnel for that purpose would be the only way to access that corridor without demolishing most of the buildings alongside the A34 north of Kingsway to widen the road sufficiently.

The problem is when Kingsway ends. There is no easy route for a tram from there. Using Upper Brook Street would follow the A34, but that is not wide enough for a segregated tram. As others have said you can go towards the A6, but the same issue applies.

Giving the capacity used by trains to the North over to higher-speed services from the South seems counterintuitive too. The tunnel has so many advantages and should be built if the will is even half there.

The route planned is absolutely the best that can be achieved to connect Manchester, Manchester Airport and Liverpool.

Exactly. It's insanity.

 

[frodshamfella]

Can you buy one at the airport itself, for arriving passengers? It would put me off, having to pay £2 on the bus plus the faff and expense of buying a train ticket, when I could hop on one of several buses (including the fast-ish 500)and do the whole journey to the city centre without changing and without paying extra.

Well im not going to the city centre so the 500 isnt an option for me, and I always by a return anyway.

 

[MarkyT]

True

Isn't it worth a tunnel to the edge of the Warrington urban area at least, to avoid the issues with reinstating the viaduct and rebuilding the TPT alongside the HSR line?

I agree that it should be pushed as far as possible in Latchford before a tunnel portal that ensures a tunnel would clear the bottom of the Manchester Ship Canal, but I don't think the viaduct would be that cheap or easy to completely rebuild (especially given the speed and weight of the trains that will be using it and the track forces they involve), plus you avoid the issue of fighting with some of the country's finest NIMBYs.

I concur that a tunnel alternative should be studied against the surface option, but I still think the latter would likely offer better value. I also worry a little about creating a new portal so close to the tidal Mersey at the west end. I'm not saying any risks couldn't be managed, but such measures often come at a cost. As for NIMBYism, the reconstructed surface line might be equipped with acoustic barriers etc to minimise nuisance in the Latchford - Thelwall area.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I concur that a tunnel alternative should be studied against the surface alternative, but I still think the latter would likely offer better value. I also worry a little about creating a new portal so close to the tidal Mersey at the west end. I'm not saying any risks couldn't be managed, but such measures often come at a cost. As for NIMBYism, the reconstructed surface line might be equipped with acoustic barriers etc to minimise nuisance in the Latchford - Thelwall area.

True, I just don't want to see the inflation-related troubles HS2 encountered due to significant legal challenge-related delays, which I think can be avoided by tunnelling from Latchford to the edge of Grappenhall at least.

 

[MarkyT]

True, I just don't want to see the inflation-related troubles HS2 encountered due to significant legal challenge-related delays, which I think can be avoided by tunnelling from Latchford to the edge of Grappenhall at least.

The alignment in question, opened in 1893 by the L&NWR as a diversion of the original Warrington and Stockport Railway to cross the new canal, is still today a largely unobstructed, fast alignment with no level crossings that was only fairly recently closed to freight traffic in 1985, due mainly to concerns over Latchford viaduct condition and the costs of its remediation in light of the quantity and value of the remaining traffic, and alternative, rather roundabout routes being available.

Reconstruction as a fast, high-frequency passenger rail corridor would change the economics of repairing or replacing the viaduct dramatically I believe. There is no formal listing of the structure with Historic England, so a complete replacement might be possible, but, alternatively, new steel spans resembling the current wrought iron construction might be placed on the existing abutments and pillars, refurbished and strengthened as necessary, all subject to full surveys of course.

The main span is 280ft (~85m) in length, shorter than the recent Ordsall chord steel bridge, so that might be a good reference project to compare likely engineering costs. The Orsall span was lifted into place in one piece, albeit not at such an altitude! Short bored tunnels are relatively expensive, mainly due to the high fixed preliminaries of setting up a TBM launch site and all the logistics involved in handling spoil out and segments in. Once underway the costs of each metre bored is fairly linear. I do not know figures involved.

Here's a great article about the viaduct with a selection of photographs:

Latchford Viaduct

At the peak of its six-year construction period, the Manchester Ship Canal occupied 17,000 navvies as they excavated more than 54 million cubic yards of material.
...
Cutting it demanded the rerouting of three railways to cross the water on viaducts at a high level. Deviation of the Stockport-Warrington line at Latchford was carried out by the London & North Western Railway, but this undertaking proved a cause of considerable tension with the canal company. Although ready for use in 1892 and approved by the Board of Trade, the L&NWR refused to use the new route for passenger traffic until it had received – in full – the compensation agreed by an arbiter; this meant that the original alignment held up progress with the waterway’s excavation. The impasse was eventually broken by a transfer of money, allowing the first passenger train to climb up the 1:135 approach embankment to cross Latchford Viaduct at 07:30pm on Sunday 9th July 1893. Goods traffic had been using it for five months.

The HS2 Birmingham spur Bromford tunnel, a design change from original proposals, was really necessary once engineers determined the effects on the parallel M6 motorway of a surface alignment through a particularly narrow part of the corridor. There was no easy way of squeezing the railway under the elevated M6 due to its particular construction on thousands of closely spaced columns. Complete reconstruction of the motorway would likely have been required over a distance of ~2km. The disruption of closing the motorway and diverting its traffic to local urban roads for an extended period and the costs involved forced the decision. Because of the fairly minimal cost of extra length once started, the tunnel will actually be longer than this at ~6km, which avoids some additional road junction works and wetlands alongside the R. Thame. Similar considerations might apply at Warrington if a tunnel solution was selected. There may be a minimal cost in extending an Arpley - Grappenhall tunnel to emerge east of the M6 to avoid the costs and disruption of additional structures.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The alignment in question, opened in 1893 by the L&NWR as a diversion of the original Warrington and Stockport Railway to cross the new canal, is still today a largely unobstructed, fast alignment with no level crossings that was only fairly recently closed to freight traffic in 1985, due mainly to concerns over Latchford viaduct condition and the costs of its remediation in light of the quantity and value of the remaining traffic, and alternative, rather roundabout routes being available.

Reconstruction as a fast, high-frequency passenger rail corridor would change the economics of repairing or replacing the viaduct dramatically I believe. There is no formal listing of the structure with Historic England, so a complete replacement might be possible, but, alternatively, new steel spans resembling the current wrought iron construction might be placed on the existing abutments and pillars, refurbished and strengthened as necessary, all subject to full surveys of course.

The main span is 280ft (~85m) in length, shorter than the recent Ordsall chord steel bridge, so that might be a good reference project to compare likely engineering costs. The Orsall span was lifted into place in one piece, albeit not at such an altitude! Short bored tunnels are relatively expensive, mainly due to the high fixed preliminaries of setting up a TBM launch site and all the logistics involved in handling spoil out and segments in. Once underway the costs of each metre bored is fairly linear. I do not know figures involved.

Fair point. The Ordsall Chord project seemed to cost £85 million. Even with inflation, it's clear we're talking about somewhere in the £100 million range.

The HS2 Birmingham spur Bromford tunnel, a design change from original proposals, was really necessary once engineers determined the effects on the parallel M6 motorway of a surface alignment through a particularly narrow part of the corridor. There was no easy way of squeezing the railway under the elevated M6 due to its particular construction on thousands of closely spaced columns. Complete reconstruction of the motorway would likely have been required over a distance of ~2km. The disruption of closing the motorway and diverting its traffic to local urban roads for an extended period and the costs involved forced the decision. Because of the fairly minimal cost of extra length once started, the tunnel will actually be longer than this at ~6km, which avoids some additional road junction works and wetlands alongside the R. Thame. Similar considerations might apply at Warrington if a tunnel solution was selected. There may be a minimal cost in extending an Arpley - Grappenhall tunnel to emerge east of the M6 to avoid the costs and disruption of additional structures.

Good. Sounds like there is some precedent from my proposal, and I agree that a tunnel emerging east of the M6 makes a lot of sense to avoid the cost and potential M6 closures relating from such a crossing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Looks like we've talked ourselves into a Warrington Tunnel from Sankey Bridges to Grappenhall, unless the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated.
Routing the line along the M56 corridor to Millington makes sense, essentially following the A50 alignment to the M56.
Navigating Widnes, to achieve a fast alignment with its multiple level crossings, will be the next problem.

 

[Brubulus]

Looks like we've talked ourselves into a Warrington Tunnel from Sankey Bridges to Grappenhall, unless the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated.
Routing the line along the M56 corridor to Millington makes sense, essentially following the A50 alignment to the M56.
Navigating Widnes, to achieve a fast alignment with its multiple level crossings, will be the next problem.

That will require Bank Quay to be underground, at great expense, which is unnecessary given a perfectly good alignment is present already.
All the level crossings can be closed relatively easily, though HGV deliveries will have to take a circuitous diversion via Eastford Road and Loverose Way in Warrington.

If this project is going to make anything vaguely resembling economic sense, it must be the minimum viable product. One good thing about a passenger only line is that you can have highly canted tracks to increase speeds through Sankey.

The project, at least as far as Lymm needs to be viewed as a total route modernization instead of a new line. This includes not clearing for European gauge where impractical due to existing structures.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Looks like we've talked ourselves into a Warrington Tunnel from Sankey Bridges to Grappenhall, unless the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated.
Routing the line along the M56 corridor to Millington makes sense, essentially following the A50 alignment to the M56.
Navigating Widnes, to achieve a fast alignment with its multiple level crossings, will be the next problem.

Most of the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated, so a tunnel would only be needed from the far western end of Latchford at the earliest point.
I can't see any actual level crossings in use in the Widnes area, unless you're talking about foot crossings.
As another member mentioned, Sankey Bridge has some, but they can mostly be closed (apart from Factory Lane, but @MarkyT proposed that section to be elevated as a viaduct over the WCML, so an rail over road overbridge will be defacto created anyway).

 

[Brubulus]

Most of the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated, so a tunnel would only be needed from the far western end of Latchford at the earliest point.
I can't see any actual level crossings in use in the Widnes area, unless you're talking about foot crossings.
As another member mentioned, Sankey Bridge has some, but they can mostly be closed (apart from Factory Lane, but @MarkyT proposed that section to be elevated as a viaduct over the WCML, so an rail over road overbridge will be defacto created anyway).

Keep the existing alignment and close Factory Lane. If extravagant proposals go in, it simply won't get built. The existing alignment isn't great, but HS2 taught us that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Stop treating it like a new line, instead it's an upgrade and rehabilitation of an existing line, at least as far as Lymm.

 

[Zomboid]

There's going to be a station at Bank Quay, so trains won't need to blast through at 100mph, if they're stuck doing 40 for a short distance on the approach to or immediately after leaving a station it's not the end of the world. After all, this is really about capacity - if retaining the existing alignment costs 60-90 seconds but 4tph can run on the slow lines, then so be it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Keep the existing alignment and close Factory Lane. If extravagant proposals go in, it simply won't get built. The existing alignment isn't great, but HS2 taught us that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Stop treating it like a new line, instead it's an upgrade and rehabilitation of an existing line, at least as far as Lymm.

You need to protect it from the Mersey - climate change is only going to make seasonal flooding more frequent and a crossing of Factory Lane is only going to be a byproduct of a viaduct that would protect it from such flooding events.

Additionally, the redevelopment of the remainder of the old factory site after a viaduct is built could lead to some quite profitable upmarket and attractive areas being built to the west and south east of Bank Quay station, which you could use to contribute to the costs of the new Liverpool to Manchester railway by introducing a development levy a la Crossrail/Elizabeth Line.

 

[The Planner]

Most of the Bank Quay industrial area can be razed/relocated, so a tunnel would only be needed from the far western end of Latchford at the earliest point.
I can't see any actual level crossings in use in the Widnes area, unless you're talking about foot crossings.
As another member mentioned, Sankey Bridge has some, but they can mostly be closed (apart from Factory Lane, but @MarkyT proposed that section to be elevated as a viaduct over the WCML, so an rail over road overbridge will be defacto created anyway).

Number of crossings along there. Carterhouse Jn, Marsh Lane, Fiddlers Ferry, Monks Sidings, Littons Mill, Slutchers Lane.

 

[HSTEd]

The main span is 280ft (~85m) in length, shorter than the recent Ordsall chord steel bridge, so that might be a good reference project to compare likely engineering costs. The Orsall span was lifted into place in one piece, albeit not at such an altitude! Short bored tunnels are relatively expensive, mainly due to the high fixed preliminaries of setting up a TBM launch site and all the logistics involved in handling spoil out and segments in. Once underway the costs of each metre bored is fairly linear. I do not know figures involved.

You wouldn't bore a tunnel under the ship canal, if one is built it would be an immersed tube.
The (tiny number of) segments could even be delivered to site via the canal from wherever is convenient!

Even if you want a bridge, I doubt you'd want to touch the old structure if you can avoid it.

Rip it all down and replace with a concrete viaduct.

 

[GJMarshy]

I may well be very biased having been saying this for years now. But honestly having heard many people tout a very similar solution both on here, on other forums, articles and twitter posts etc (often rail professionals), I think a hard reset of this railway is due.

We've forgotten what problem it's trying to solve, and are now in a situation where streams of fluffy PDFs are being released to try and woo Whitehall to justify a line based on legacy assumptions, all in the absence of HS2. We're in a state of finding problems to fit the solution, rather than the other way around.

It's just wasting public resources and civil servants time at this point, pushing a ghost scheme that'll just fade away like platforms 15/16 did. We need real change. Better to target that key interventions than a single mega project. Jim Steer has pointed out the same issue. Massive potential, organisational & political stalemate.

Change tack. Pronto. Explore lots of other solutions to the issues that matter. Maybe what I've attached is the fix, maybe it isn't. But we won't know for sure until modelling has been done. Interestingly a recent FOI proved that no other options were even considered for the NPR route, and zero documents even existed detailing the effects of NPR/LMR on Castlefield.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Number of crossings along there. Carterhouse Jn, Marsh Lane, Fiddlers Ferry, Monks Sidings, Littons Mill, Slutchers Lane.

Ah, was looking in Widnes itself rather than outside. At least most of those seem to be dead ends with no real purpose to exist, now the power station has closed.

 

[Grimsby town]

I may well be very biased having been saying this for years now. But honestly having heard many people tout a very similar solution both on here, on other forums, articles and twitter posts etc (often rail professionals), I think a hard reset of this railway is due.

We've forgotten what problem it's trying to solve, and are now in a situation where streams of fluffy PDFs are being released to try and woo Whitehall to justify a line based on legacy assumptions, all in the absence of HS2. We're in a state of finding problems to fit the solution, rather than the other way around.

It's just wasting public resources and civil servants time at this point, pushing a ghost scheme that'll just fade away like platforms 15/16 did. We need real change. Better to target that key interventions than a single mega project. Jim Steer has pointed out the same issue. Massive potential, organisational & political stalemate.

Change tack. Pronto. Explore lots of other solutions to the issues that matter. Maybe what I've attached is the fix, maybe it isn't. But we won't know for sure until modelling has been done. Interestingly a recent FOI proved that no other options were even considered for the NPR route, and zero documents even existed detailing the effects of NPR/LMR on Castlefield.

At the same time you can spend decades discussing ideas and never actually do anything. At some point we need to build a scheme even if it's not everybody's perfect solution. Modelling for NPR has been going for years and there's been constant scope changes. At some point something has to be agreed and the LMR scheme seems to have political backing and consensus which is important.

The problem with a tunnel under central Manchester is that billions are being spent on expensive infrastructure that feeds directly back into congested mixed traffic lines. In my opinion that doesn't solve the issues. City centre tunnels are great in countries like Germany or even London where most lines are quad tracked but that's not the case in northern England. Its a huge risk that a tunnel becomes another Ordsall Chord, albeit one with some capacity and reliability benefits, but at a huge cost.

Without heavy investment in a new line or upgrading Chat Moss, you're still stuck with 2 fast trains to Liverpool from Manchester with no chance to increase freight on Chat Moss. It might free up paths on other lines but the capacity release won't come anywhere near what a new line achieves particularly if London and Birmingham trains can also use it from Manchester/Leeds.

 

[GJMarshy]

At the same time you can spend decades discussing ideas and never actually do anything. At some point we need to build a scheme even if it's not everybody's perfect solution. Modelling for NPR has been going for years and there's been constant scope changes. At some point something has to be agreed and the LMR scheme seems to have political backing and consensus which is important.

The problem with a tunnel under central Manchester is that billions are being spent on expensive infrastructure that feeds directly back into congested mixed traffic lines. In my opinion that doesn't solve the issues. City centre tunnels are great in countries like Germany or even London where most lines are quad tracked but that's not the case in northern England. Its a huge risk that a tunnel becomes another Ordsall Chord, albeit one with some capacity and reliability benefits, but at a huge cost.

Without heavy investment in a new line or upgrading Chat Moss, you're still stuck with 2 fast trains to Liverpool from Manchester with no chance to increase freight on Chat Moss. It might free up paths on other lines but the capacity release won't come anywhere near what a new line achieves particularly if London and Birmingham trains can also use it from Manchester/Leeds.

I take your point on if it were mixed traffic tunnel, but I think you might’ve missed the suggestion.

The suggestion is to plug in TRU at one end plus Sheffield services (8tph roughly) to Chat Moss initially at the other (6tph with alternating stopping patterns) with the intention to build a new Liverpool to Manchester line possibly parallel to the M62 with a spur until Warrington bank quay toward North Wales, which gives you your solid 8tph fast at that end.

Then your existing network is completely de-tangled for intercity/fast services. Mixed traffic in central Manchester (the main bottleneck) would become a thing of the past.

Compare that to LMRs proposed 8.5mi N-S tunnel (with HS2 now removed from scope indefinitely) and the necessity for a tunnel the other side of Piccadilly pit toward TRU – and you’re looking at c. £20b for 3-6tph maximum. It’d concentrate IC services purely on Piccadilly putting more pressure on feeder services through Castlefield to reach it, and so – the problem is compounded.

 

[Grimsby town]

I take your point on if it were mixed traffic tunnel, but I think you might’ve missed the suggestion.

The suggestion is to plug in TRU at one end plus Sheffield services (8tph roughly) to Chat Moss initially at the other (6tph with alternating stopping patterns) with the intention to build a new Liverpool to Manchester line possibly parallel to the M62 with a spur until Warrington bank quay toward North Wales, which gives you your solid 8tph fast at that end.

Then your existing network is completely de-tangled for intercity/fast services. Mixed traffic in central Manchester (the main bottleneck) would become a thing of the past.

Compare that to LMRs proposed 8.5mi N-S tunnel (with HS2 now removed from scope indefinitely) and the necessity for a tunnel the other side of Piccadilly pit toward TRU – and you’re looking at c. £20b for 3-6tph maximum. It’d concentrate IC services purely on Piccadilly putting more pressure on feeder services through Castlefield to reach it, and so – the problem is compounded.

The problem is that the tunnel itself doesn't deliver a whole lot without the new line along the M62. It'll improve reliability a lot and maybe provide a small number of additonal paths e.g. more stopping services to Warrington Central but not much else. A tunnel is going to be slow and difficult to build so they might as well be built at the same time to achieve full benefits. Its a lot more manageable than Phase 1 of HS2 so I don't see the need to split it into phases. Focus on more manageable improvements in the mean time such as grade separating ordsall, electrification, Oxford Road remodelling.

There's no reason a line via the airport couldn't accommodate Sheffield and Chester services too. Its more useful for any potential phases of HS2 too. I'm sceptical on Sheffield being accommodated. The Marple line isn't really suited to intercity services so would need a fairly major upgrade with new passing loops and sidings.