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

[Howardh]

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.

They really should simply redevelop their original stadium, which could mean, I suppose, building over the railway, but wouldn't that provide a dedicated indoor station for them?

Would whomever owns the railway there object if they were paid for the "land" above and compensated for any disruption? A railway passes under the old Landsdowne Road stadium in Dublin - does it still? Were there any issues when that stadium was redeveloped?

 

[Rail Ranger]

There is room (just) to build a new stadium next to Old Trafford without affecting the freightliner terminal.

 

[158756]

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.

The timescales United want don't work with the time needed to relocate the freight terminal. If it closes this year for the preparatory works, I guess some traffic could move to the Merseyside terminals, maybe some to Yorkshire, but how many trains would those sites be able to accommodate?

Is there any recent news of a projected completion date for the new terminal at Parkside, or who is going to fund it?

 

[NCT]

I can't get into the rights and wrongs of whether the freight terminal should be moved.

Simply in terms of passenger access to the larger stadium and higher density mixed-use developed area, I'd think the answer is simple. Put Altrincham / Didbury - Bury Metrolink in a tunnel, and release the surface tracks through Cornbrook to be exclusive for the Eccles and Trafford Park lines.

Wharside gets 20tph of 60m walk-through trams. Old Trafford gets 24tph of 90m DLR-style walk-through trains. Ought to be sufficient capacity.

 

[JamesT]

They really should simply redevelop their original stadium, which could mean, I suppose, building over the railway, but wouldn't that provide a dedicated indoor station for them?

Would whomever owns the railway there object if they were paid for the "land" above and compensated for any disruption? A railway passes under the old Landsdowne Road stadium in Dublin - does it still? Were there any issues when that stadium was redeveloped?

In theory you could redevelop the current site. But you're hemmed in by both the railway land and the canal. Lansdowne Road also took 3 years to rebuild, during which time the football club would need to find another home. There was a small amount of fuss with the usage of Croke Park as the rules of the GAA had to change to allow 'foreign' sports to be played on their ground.

Using the freight yard gives much more opportunity to build a decent sized station, rather than the current (unused) platform down in a cutting. Redeveloping the land is also likely to help pay for the stadium build.

 

[NCT]

How did White Hart Lane expansion happen? Can't Old Trafford do something similar?

 

[Howardh]

In theory you could redevelop the current site. But you're hemmed in by both the railway land and the canal. Lansdowne Road also took 3 years to rebuild, during which time the football club would need to find another home. There was a small amount of fuss with the usage of Croke Park as the rules of the GAA had to change to allow 'foreign' sports to be played on their ground.

Using the freight yard gives much more opportunity to build a decent sized station, rather than the current (unused) platform down in a cutting. Redeveloping the land is also likely to help pay for the stadium build.

The answer to the other home, albeit temporary, is across the city and coloured blue!! Think the capacity of the Etihad is lower than OT but it appears to be continually being expanded.

How did White Hart Lane expansion happen? Can't Old Trafford do something similar?

Possibly - but that would mean a reduction of capacity of OT as parts are "sliced" off, therefore lower income and Jim Ratcliffe won't like that!!

Think the quickest, cheapest and most realistic option is to redevelop the whole ground within 3-4 yrs and play their "home" games at City.

Either way the rail would be unaffected and the station re-introduced?

 

[HSTEd]

I am skeptical that the site is worth anything like what Freightliner wants.

I am also skeptical that the depot not moving is in the public interest.
Now I assume we will find out if Burnham has more power than the freight lobby.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Freightliner seem to be looking to cover the cost of relocation to Parkside.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I am skeptical that the site is worth anything like what Freightliner wants.

I am also skeptical that the depot not moving is in the public interest.
Now I assume we will find out if Burnham has more power than the freight lobby.

It’s not about some arbitrary valuation of the land. The government has signed up to a target growing rail freight by 75% by 2050. You don’t achieve that by bulldozing on of the largest rail-served intermodal complexes in the country without immediate or definite replacement. Anyone who thinks that the traffic will simply switch to Ditton or Garston rather than being lost from rail to road entirely is delusional.

 

[Rail Ranger]

It would be a bit pointless to build a large new station to the west of the present Old Trafford stadium to serve a new stadium when there aren't any spare paths through Castlefield. The freights only use one path per hour in each direction.

 

[simonw]

How are they going to fill a stadium that size playing in the national league north?

 

[HSTEd]

It’s not about some arbitrary valuation of the land. The government has signed up to a target growing rail freight by 75% by 2050. You don’t achieve that by bulldozing on of the largest rail-served intermodal complexes in the country without immediate or definite replacement. Anyone who thinks that the traffic will simply switch to Ditton or Garston rather than being lost from rail to road entirely is delusional.

You don't grow rail freight by 75% by trying to serve Manchester from such a poorly positioned railfreight yard as Trafford Park.

Nevermind the problems is causes for the passenger railway

 

[Rail Ranger]

Trafford Park is well positioned for the market (otherwise why would it be so busy?) but there is a need for a longer terminal so that trains do not to have to be split and rejoined.

 

[HSTEd]

Trafford Park is well positioned for the market (otherwise why would it be so busy?) but there is a need for a longer terminal so that trains do not to have to be split and rejoined.

Trafford Park might be well positioned for the road side, but it is appallingly positioned for the rail side of it's operations.

The true value of the Castlefield paths it is assigned is likely enormous. It's some of the most congested rail infrastructure in the north of England.

There is certainly no prospect of it ever getting more paths.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Only because the rail industry chose to put all its eggs in one basket at Piccadilly. It is not clear that any more paths would be available between Winsford station and Weaver Junction if the Parkside or Port Salford terminals ever happen.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The point is that rail freight needs to have large, modern 775m terminals at Parkside and Port Salford in addition to the Trafford Park pair (or equivalents) to reach the 75% growth target.

The cynic or conspiracy theorist might wonder whether the Trafford Park takeover is actually part of a cunning plan to shrink freight on the WCML so much that Handsacre-Colwich-Shugborough-Milford & Brockton magically becomes sufficiently de-congested to allow extra HS2 trains through there. Phase 2a can then be scrapped; the M6 will be severely compromised by all the substitute HGVs and the passenger trains will be full of displaced car drivers. Ker-ching!

 

[Chester1]

I can't get into the rights and wrongs of whether the freight terminal should be moved.

Simply in terms of passenger access to the larger stadium and higher density mixed-use developed area, I'd think the answer is simple. Put Altrincham / Didbury - Bury Metrolink in a tunnel, and release the surface tracks through Cornbrook to be exclusive for the Eccles and Trafford Park lines.

Wharside gets 20tph of 60m walk-through trams. Old Trafford gets 24tph of 90m DLR-style walk-through trains. Ought to be sufficient capacity.

What is the justification for that, apart from it being your pet project for Manchester? The expanded stadium would have little effect on Metrolink. The associated housing is 7000 apartments and this is slightly more than the average number completed in the city centre in a single year. The Trafford Park line is served by a single unit providing plenty of additional capacity if necessary. The new "Village" is planned to have a 2 platform railway station and I would guess both stoppers would use it. TfGM won't spend any meaningful amount of money supporting a private company host 25-28 large events a year.

 

[NCT]

What is the justification for that, apart from it being your pet project for Manchester? The expanded stadium would have little effect on Metrolink. The associated housing is 7000 apartments and this is slightly more than the average number completed in the city centre in a single year. The Trafford Park line is served by a single unit providing plenty of additional capacity if necessary. The new "Village" is planned to have a 2 platform railway station and I would guess both stoppers would use it. TfGM won't spend any meaningful amount of money supporting a private company host 25-28 large events a year.

Whoever's pet project it is, it's much cheaper than any of the tram-train tunnel ideas coming from GMCA/TfGM quarters.

An urban stadium should have (near) 0 car access like Emirates. You need tube-like transport capacity to shift the volumes. Obviously you wouldn't just build tube-like capacity for match days only - you need a whole urban corridor producing tube-like passenger demand, and the Altrincham / Salford Quays direction is as close to this kind of a corridor in Manchester as you are going to get.

Trafford Park might be well positioned for the road side, but it is appallingly positioned for the rail side of it's operations.

The true value of the Castlefield paths it is assigned is likely enormous. It's some of the most congested rail infrastructure in the north of England.

There is certainly no prospect of it ever getting more paths.

A short train with subsidised fares is absolutely NOT more valuable than a 775m Class 4 path.

The point is that rail freight needs to have large, modern 775m terminals at Parkside and Port Salford in addition to the Trafford Park pair (or equivalents) to reach the 75% growth target.

Indeed.

 

[HSTEd]

A short train with subsidised fares is absolutely NOT more valuable than a 775m Class 4 path.

A Class 4 path that is so valuable that the freight operator pays essentially nothing for it, because the market will not bear any charge at all.

The passenger railway pays an enormously greater portion of tis infrastructure cost than the freight railway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==

The point is that rail freight needs to have large, modern 775m terminals at Parkside and Port Salford in addition to the Trafford Park pair (or equivalents) to reach the 75% growth target.

There is no fundamental reason that freight operations at Trafford Park cannot be accomodated at a modern facility elsewhere.
The Trafford Park facility is not really fit for today's container operations and the site is too constrained for it to be made so.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The passenger railway pays an enormously greater portion of tis infrastructure cost than the freight railway.

I thought that in overall net terms the 'passenger railway' doesn't even cover its direct movement costs (rolling stock, fuel, train crew, station staff, cleaners, etc., plus VTAC*). The fact that various aspects of 'fixed track access charge' and 'network grant' are laundered via the DfT or devolved administrations is simply a cloaking device to disguise the fact that The Taxpayer essentially props up the infrastructure (on which both passenger and freight services then create various types of economic , social, environmental and other benefits).

*Variable Track Access Charges.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought that in overall net terms the 'passenger railway' doesn't even cover its direct movement costs (rolling stock, fuel, train crew, station staff, cleaners, etc., plus VTAC*). The fact that various aspects of 'fixed track access charge' and 'network grant' are laundered via the DfT or devolved administrations is simply a cloaking device to disguise the fact that The Taxpayer essentially props up the infrastructure (on which both passenger and freight services then create various types of economic , social, environmental and other benefits).

*Variable Track Access Charges.

The passenger farebox covers baout 40% of state costs in operating the railway (£10bn out of ~£25bn).

Freight contribution to state railway costs is about £60m per year. The figures are rather tangled up by lots of money being moved in and out of columns in various directions however.

Moving the freight terminal to St Helens will not seriously impact the economics of freight shipment by rail, whilst improving passenger service on the Castlefield corridor has the potential to raise substantial additional revenue for the railway.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Firstly Parkside East is not in St Helens. Part of the site happens to be in St Helens borough. Part of the site is in Wigan borough. Parkside East is near Newton-le-Willows. Not all of the current users of Trafford Park freightliner terminal may wish the terminal to move to Parkside. Traffic could be lost as a consequence. As mentioned previously even if all three of the Trafford Park freight terminals were moved elsewhere it would only release one path per hour in each direction through Castlefield.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Not all of the current users of Trafford Park freightliner terminal may wish the terminal to move to Parkside. Traffic could be lost as a consequence

It's also possible to argue that there are potential users who don't like Trafford Park but would love Parkside so traffic could be gained as a consequence.

But without evidence, neither are valid arguments - they're just assertions.

 

[Rail Ranger]

It is easy to lose existing traffic and much harder to gain new traffic.

 

[Chester1]

Firstly Parkside East is not in St Helens. Part of the site happens to be in St Helens borough. Part of the site is in Wigan borough. Parkside East is near Newton-le-Willows. Not all of the current users of Trafford Park freightliner terminal may wish the terminal to move to Parkside. Traffic could be lost as a consequence. As mentioned previously even if all three of the Trafford Park freight terminals were moved elsewhere it would only release one path per hour in each direction through Castlefield.

Are you sure it just releases one path? A 770m long freight train will take longer to clear each signal than a passenger train.

 

[HSTEd]

At the line speed (30mph) a 770m train will take close to a minute to physically pass over a point at Castlefield junction.

Accelerating from a stand it will take substantially longer.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Container trains currently occupy one path in each direction per hour (not all available paths are used on any given day). I'll leave it to timetabling experts to say how many paths would be released if some or all of the freight traffic were diverted elsewhere. The problem of congestion on the Castlefield corridor has its origins in the over-ambitious May 1989 Windsor Link timetable and the planned rundown of Manchester Victoria. That timetable attempted to put a quart into a pint pot in terms of the double track between Castlefield Junction and Piccadilly. Some passenger trains (e.g. the Liverpool-Newcastle service) have been rerouted to again run through Victoria but the opening of the Ordsall chord has clearly not helped matters. Surely freight has as much if not more right to use Castlefield as anything else? It was there before the congestion was created.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2025 ==

I see that the freights normally use platforms 1 and 3 at Oxford Road, which are not normally used by passenger trains.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I see that the freights use platforms 1 and 3 at Oxford Road, which are not normally used by passenger trains

I'm not sure this is true (or maybe not entirely true). When I have been waiting for a delayed 1811 TPE from Oxford Road to Liverpool and the freight has run through first, it runs through P2. Maybe it's routed differently when everything is running to time?

And more to the point, is it possible to have a passenger train in platforms 2 or 4 and run the freight through? My impression is that there's very limited space, but I am no expert so may have misunderstood what I have seen here.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Progress with the plans for Parkside container terminal: Plans for massive rail freight interchange near M6 | Warrington Guardian https://share.google/ECbLC6mIvYUNNv9LK