CLC Route Upgrade Study

[brad465]

Are there still 2-aspect signal blocks on this route in places? If so this could really do with a 3/4 aspect replacement (or, as suggested above, possibly even ETCS).

 

[HSTEd]

As someone who lives in Warrington (and who also has lived in Manchester for many years and Liverpool for 2 years) I can't see that idea washing with people to enforce a modal change (train to tram or vice versa) at Warrington. Plenty of people commute Liverpool to Manchester or vice versa, I did it myself years ago. Given the exponential growth of Manchester this will only increase demand for a thru journey. I still think a separate NPR line via Bank Quay Lower level is badly needed too

In terms of an additional Metrolink line to Warrington (still allowing thru trains on the CLC) - thats a good idea but is years and years away frankly due to costs.

Any future new line would easily swallow the end to end traffic.

Very few people would still be taking end to end journeys on the CLC!
Personally I think concentrating end to end traffic onto the Chat Moss would still be acceptable for Manchester-Liverpol traffic with longer trains. Using Bank Quay for fast trains from Warrington to Manchester.

 

[dodecahedron67]

…while it's an important diversionary route for e.g. TPE

So important that only two depots (Liverpool, Airport Guards/Piccadilly Scarborough Link drivers) sign both Chat Moss and CLC, with other depots (Sheffield, York, Piccadilly Guards, Piccadilly Hull Link drivers) only signing one of the two…

 

[yorksrob]

Even assuming the Manchester-Liverpool high speed line is eventually built, which I doubt, I don't think 25kV electrification is justifiable.

In that situation it'd be better splitting the line at Warrington for Metrolink and Merseyrail - but I await some movement on the supposed Liverpoll Manchester High speed line!

Is 25kV that much more expensive than converting half to tram (with OHE) and the other half, whatever we're allowed to do vis a vis third rail ?

 

[Paul AC]

They are. According to Rail Engineer August 2025, Jonathan Williams, Network Rail’s lead strategic planner reports that NRis refreshing its Decarbonisation Network Strategy to include battery trains.

Batteries included - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article In February 2015, a battery-fitted Class 379 Electrostar undertook trials on the Harwich branch. This independently-powered EMU (IPEMU) was the first battery-powered train on the UK rail network for more than 50 years. During its trials, it ran with its pantograph...

www.railengineer.co.uk

That's just Network Rail doing its usual trick of wanting to transfer responsibility for difficult problems from itself onto the train operators. Battery-fitted trains are great for Network Rail as they don't need to do anything; but it makes the train operator's task more difficult by having to source and maintain specialist trains. Installing full OLE is harder work for Network Rail and easier for the train operators as they can use standard EMUs.

Same as ETCS: easier for Network Rail, much harder for everyone else.

Anyone would think that Network Rail, the UK's rail Infrastructure Manager, didn't like managing infrastructure.

 

[zwk500]

Are there still 2-aspect signal blocks on this route in places? If so this could really do with a 3/4 aspect replacement (or, as suggested above, possibly even ETCS).

As detailed in the Slide deck linked in Post #1, yes. There is a mix of 2- and 3-Aspect signalling controlled by individual signal boxes (with Absolute Block) along the route. The preferred option presented is for 3-Aspect throughout controlled from Manchester ROC (which would use a modern interlocking suitable for ETCS at a later date). ETCS was mentioned in passing on the slide deck but very much as a 'this is what it would look like if you wanted it' not as a 'this is what should be being looked at' option.

I would imagine this line would be considered a low priority for ETCS and would only be placed in the pipeline once the sections either end (which are far busier and have far more benefit from ETCS) are converted, as an infill scheme to eliminate the transition points..

Is 25kV that much more expensive than converting half to tram (with OHE) and the other half, whatever we're allowed to do vis a vis third rail ?

Given the Merseyrail half would almost certainly be battery operation with the 777s, yes. By how much depends on how many bridges need rebuilding for 25KV vs 750v, and then how the feeding and sectioning arrangements differ.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

Because of this the only two sensible choices are to keep it as it is but with some form of electrification and maybe frequency upgrades, or the Merseyrail/Metrolink option with buffer stops at Warrington a la Ormskirk/Headbolt Lane.

Genuine question - does the Warrington-Manchester section *have* to be Metrolink? It's probably better overall but I don't think it's such an obvious imbalance that a Manchester-Warrington Central service remaining with Northern should be completely counted out.

 

[Nottingham59]

Genuine question - does the Warrington-Manchester section *have* to be Metrolink? It's probably better overall but I don't think it's such an obvious imbalance that a Manchester-Warrington Central service remaining with Northern should be completely counted out.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Firstly, it means that the passenger flow from Warrington Central to Manchester could go striaight onto the Metrolink network, reducing congestion and complexity on the Castlefield corridor. And secondly, the Metrolink could be extended west from Warrington Central round an East to South curve to terminate at Warrington Bank Quay, with interchange to WCML and any new Liverpool-Manchester line.

EDIT
Merseyrail could do the same from the West, making WBQ a proper Hauptbahnhof interchange for the whole of the northwest of England.

 

[BeijingDave]

It makes a lot of sense to me. Firstly, it means that the passenger flow from Warrington Central to Manchester could go striaight onto the Metrolink network, reducing congestion and complexity on the Castlefield corridor. And secondly, the Metrolink could be extended west from Warrington Central round an East to South curve to terminate at Warrington Bank Quay, with interchange to WCML and any new Liverpool-Manchester line.

EDIT
Merseyrail could do the same from the West, making WBQ a proper Hauptbahnhof interchange for the whole of the northwest

Only problem is you would sever the connection to Warrington Central and its almost-attached bus interchange.

Warrington Bank Quay is a bit of a pain for the CBD and no buses stop there.

This plan would be very problematic for the (possibly) hundreds who travel from Hough Green, Halewood, Widnes etc to work in central Warrington.

 

[Nottingham59]

Only problem is you would sever the connection to Warrington Central and its almost-attached bus interchange.

Warrington Bank Quay is a bit of a pain for the CBD and no buses stop there.

This plan would be very problematic for the (possibly) hundreds who travel from Hough Green, Halewood, Widnes etc to work in central Warrington.

If that's a major flow, then maybe the Metrolink should leave the CLC route just before Warrington Central and run down Midland Way or Horsemarket St before terminating at WBQ? Leaving Warrington Central as a Merseyrail terminus, and providing a tram link between Central and Bank Quay.

But giving the residents of Halewood access to fast trains into Manchester via WBQ would be a major boost to the economy of those south Liverpool suburbs.

 

[MarkyT]

If that's a major flow, then maybe the Metrolink should leave the CLC route just before Warrington Central and run down Midland Way or Horsemarket St before terminating at WBQ? Leaving Warrington Central as a Merseyrail terminus, and providing a tram link between Central and Bank Quay.

With both Metrolink and Merseyrail trains able to run from DC supplies, the trains and high floor tram(-trains)s might share platforms at Central, either with both OLE and 3rd rail provided through the common section, or with a subfleet of 777s equipped with a low-voltage DC pantographs. As both supplies are DC there would be no conflict in the earthing standards that plague mixed areas involving DC and high voltage AC.

Equipping 777s for overhead DC could allow the entire CLC electrification to be light rail/metro standard overhead at ~750VDC. Sharing platforms at Central would make interchange for E-W cross-Warrington journeys very easy. Merseyrail services could reverse in a centre turnback facility constructed to the east of the station where sidings currently use the former wide alignment. Metrolink trams could continue west of Central station to a new junction just before the line crosses the WCML where a single track chord, exploiting the curving and hill climbing abilities of light rail would swing sharply south and down to run alongside the WCML into Bank Quay station along current siding alignments. The spur would be ~800m long.

The idea is illustrated below. Yellow respresents the new Metrolink spur. Orange is an alternative at the north end with a flat crossing of Froghall Lane if the gradient would be too great to pass over then below Froghall Lane in the short distance available; the alternative tram spur would cross the road on the level then climb more gently up the side of the CLC embankment alongside Midland Way.

With the ability of Merseyrail trains to use an overhead DC supply, some of their trains might be extended beyond Warrington Central, perhaps to Birchwood where another turnback facility could be constructed.

Track and Signalling schematic:

 

[HSTEd]

With batteries and a DC pantograph fitted in the redundant pantograph well (since the battery is where a transformer would be), I think you could probably make a Class 777 draw loads comparable to a double tram's peak load.

I'd be iffy on actually sharing track though due to performance risks, but even a short single track segment may be tolerable for Metrolink if its only 5 trams per hour (and I doubt you'd need more).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Because of the route's woeful punctuality, however, the only way you would want to do that would be if there were buffer stops installed at Warrington Central.

Given that Warrington Central has two platforms (and two tracks) do you literally mean buffer stops? Or could Liverpool trains run into platform 1 (and back again), and Manchester trains use platform 2 (or the other way round: off the top of my head I'm not sure which side is p1 and which p2 - and whether the pointwork allows reversing towards L'pool/Manc) while leaving the tracks running through but generally unused?

The thing is, through tracks don't mandate through running - but they do allow it. So if the through tracks could be retained then it retains the possibility of through running: I understand where Bletchleyite is coming from in keeping Merseyrail isolated for performance reasons, but if Chat Moss had to be closed for some reason then Manchester to Liverpool services could be diverted via Warrington.

 

[HSTEd]

The thing is, through tracks don't mandate through running - but they do allow it. So if the through tracks could be retained then it retains the possibility of through running: I understand where Bletchleyite is coming from in keeping Merseyrail isolated for performance reasons, but if Chat Moss had to be closed for some reason then Manchester to Liverpool services could be diverted via Warrington.

The training burden and signalling equipment costs associated with that sort of operation would be much greater than the benefits of a seldom used diversion route.
A scenario with Metrolink and Merseyrail meeting at Warrington can still perform a "get people home" emergency role.

They just have to walk 50 metres down the platform at Warrington Central.

 

[mike57]

In terms of Chat Moss v CLC, there are lot more population centres on the CLC with Warrington being the big draw. The problem to me is that anything coming off the CLC line at the east end ends up through Castlefield, and then needs to carry on past Manchester to reach a turn round point.

In terms of usefulness the CLC route also serves Widnes, and Birchwood which has quite a commuter base.

So yes upgrade would be good, BUT we havent even finished the main Trans Pennine North Electrification yet, and progress seems to be glacial, and the Chat Moss route is already electrified, so actual boots on ground electrification works... 20 years off, or even longer based on current progress.

Maybe the wrong Liverpool Manchester route was electrified... But Castlefield will always be the blocker.

 

[The exile]

It makes a lot of sense to me. Firstly, it means that the passenger flow from Warrington Central to Manchester could go striaight onto the Metrolink network, reducing congestion and complexity on the Castlefield corridor. And secondly, the Metrolink could be extended west from Warrington Central round an East to South curve to terminate at Warrington Bank Quay, with interchange to WCML and any new Liverpool-Manchester line.

Metrolink of course has its own Castlefield issues - I doubt you could squeeze much more through there without the whole timetable falling apart every time someone sneezes. A second western approach to, and third crossing of, the City centre would be necessary, I should think - able to operate independently, but also linked to allow flexibility. Before anything significant is added to the edges of Metrolink, further development of a real network in the city itself is needed - and that ain't going to be cheap.

 

[Chester1]

Thanks for posting. Backs up what I was saying. The CLC probably wouldn't be electrified under that criteria but the likes of the Hope Valley, MML, Sheffield to Immingham would be electrified due to their higher speed or freight train usage. The CLC should have been electrified years ago and I believed, up to ~5 years ago, that it was probably one of the biggest electrification priorities. Battery improvements has meant there are far more worthy lines for electrification now.

I agree with this. 30 miles isn't much for a battery now, let alone in 10 or 20 years time. With the continuing growth of battery range there are a lot of lines that should have been electified a long time ago but probably never will be because batteries make it unnecessary. It reminds me of areas in the developing world missing home land line phones and going straight to mobile phones. If things are delayed long enough technology moves on.

 

[The Pelican]

Splitting this route makes no sense; fundamentally, a reasonably fast Liverpool-Manchester route is much more useful than a slow one. What the route needs is a way to avoid castlefield- I can see the following options:

1. Terminate some trains at Cornbrook
This seems the best answer to me, and could be introduced before most of the other options. It probably requires a three or four platform Cornbrook station

2. It's own tram route from Cornbrook to Picadilly, not crossing Metrolink anywhere.
This could run fairly near the viaduct in lots of places, stop at Cornbrook, Deansgate, Oxford Road and somewhere to the west of Piccadilly. It would need a way to limit or redirect traffic on the roads it would use. Then the route could be operated as a shuttle between the Merseyrail core and Manchester Picadilly using a third rail/overhead wire capable tram (as seen in the Netherlands). The most important thing would be to offer tram based express services with a few passing loops.

3. Some sort of terminus elevated above Deansgate, or terminus platforms on the section of CLC line just near the junction with the Castlefield tracks
A two platforms terminus could potentially be stacked above the existing deansgate station, with most passenger trains terminating at these platforms. Alternatively, two terminus platforms could be built on the current viaduct approach to the junction with the castlefield line.

4. some sort of terminating tunnel
A good idea, but any investment on the scale of a manchester rail tunnel will go to whichever of Metrolink, National Rail trains or high speed rail is the most cost effective.

 

[Chester1]

Splitting this route makes no sense; fundamentally, a reasonably fast Liverpool-Manchester route is much more useful than a slow one. What the route needs is a way to avoid castlefield- I can see the following options:

1. Terminate some trains at Cornbrook
This seems the best answer to me, and could be introduced before most of the other options. It probably requires a three or four platform Cornbrook station

2. It's own tram route from Cornbrook to Picadilly, not crossing Metrolink anywhere.
This could run fairly near the viaduct in lots of places, stop at Cornbrook, Deansgate, Oxford Road and somewhere to the west of Piccadilly. It would need a way to limit or redirect traffic on the roads it would use. Then the route could be operated as a shuttle between the Merseyrail core and Manchester Picadilly using a third rail/overhead wire capable tram (as seen in the Netherlands). The most important thing would be to offer tram based express services with a few passing loops.

3. Some sort of terminus elevated above Deansgate, or terminus platforms on the section of CLC line just near the junction with the Castlefield tracks
A two platforms terminus could potentially be stacked above the existing deansgate station, with most passenger trains terminating at these platforms. Alternatively, two terminus platforms could be built on the current viaduct approach to the junction with the castlefield line.

4. some sort of terminating tunnel
A good idea, but any investment on the scale of a manchester rail tunnel will go to whichever of Metrolink, National Rail trains or high speed rail is the most cost effective.

Option 1 is practical but terrible politics. Telling people to change onto Metrolink to reach the city centre would be unpopular. Options 2 and 4 are very expensive and its not the alignment that kind of money will be invested in. That leaves some version of option 3. MCC will never grant planning permission for stacking Deansgate because it would demolish some attractive and historic railway architecture in an important part of the city. A terminating platform can probably still be fitted in nearby.

 

[frodshamfella]

Without having read the report yet at Hunts Cross the Merseyrail service should transfer to Platform 1 and through services use Platforms 2 and 3. This would remove the current situation were the Merseyrail services (8 trains per hour) have to cross all the other services between Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington Central.
Using BEMUs the Merseyrail service could be extended to Warrington Central giving a better service to Stations at Halewood, Hough Green, Widnes, Sankey and Warrington West. The 24 miles return from Hunts Cross West to Warrington Central is well within the capabilities of the current Class 777 BEMUs.

Should it operate to Warrington Central, would you suggest the service begins in Southport ( Ormskirk presently) or should it considering the length of this stopping service operate from the shorter branch from Headbolt Lane ? I think the Liverpool Central to South Parkway should receive more services., particularly for Liverpool Airport passengers, which are increasing.

 

[edwin_m]

A previous study I was involved in proposed a west-facing turnback east of Birchwood (or alternatively a bay platform) and an east-facing turnback west of Warrington West. The timetable could have had a fast to Liverpool leaving Birchwood just ahead of a stopper originating there for Liverpool, and arriving at Warrington West just after a terminating stopper from Manchester. Although some journeys would need an extra change at one of the Warrington stations, most people doing so would be travelling to/from Manchester or Liverpool and could use a fast train for that leg.

None of that features in this proposal as far as I can see. It probably cost quite a lot and maybe they think the better performance of electrics makes end to end stopping services robust enough to fit between the fasts.

 

[The Pelican]

Option 1 is practical but terrible politics. Telling people to change onto Metrolink to reach the city centre would be unpopular. Options 2 and 4 are very expensive and its not the alignment that kind of money will be invested in. That leaves some version of option 3. MCC will never grant planning permission for stacking Deansgate because it would demolish some attractive and historic railway architecture in an important part of the city. A terminating platform can probably still be fitted in nearby.

I would imagine option 1 being joined to a substantial increase in service frequency. The bigger problem is that, to make the service pattern consistent, assuming a 4 fast plus four slow service pattern, it would be desireable to consistently terminate either fast trains or slow trains at Cornbrook, and continue (some of) the other type.

I think Option 4 (a tunnel) would be two expensive, but Option 2 (a tram line exclusively for CLC tram-trains from Cornbrook towards Picadilly) wouldn't have to cost too much more than the second city crossing, especially if it's acceptable to terminate the trams at a stop near Deansgate or a stop near Oxford Road.

 

[cle]

I am a supporter of the Met/Merseyrail severing at Warrington Central - but - that isn't the topic and if CLC is kept, it should absolutely be upgraded including wires and dsome additional turnack/platform possibilities for increased service.

The CLC seems like it would benefit from a three or four platform Cornbrook NR station, with additonal services operated that didn't continue onto the Deansgate Picadilly viaduct. It should probably aim at 4tph stopping and 4tph fast, with some 4 tracking.

This is a no-brainer to me. Manchester has spread in every direction, and Cornbrook is a tram hub which, with fully integrated / no modal penalty ticketing - would be an excellent western hub. As mentioned, even one west-facing bay would enable more trains which don't mess with Castlefield and could flight right behind fasts, or in from of stoppers. As compensation, Met transfers/rides in station would need to be 'free', as mentioned.

 

[HSTEd]

The last thing Manchester needs is yet another major station in the centre.

The rail service is already fragmented as it is.

 

[Harpo]

Same as ETCS: easier for Network Rail, much harder for everyone else.

I’d agree with the slopey-shoulders of discontinuous electrification but not ETCS which will ultimately reduce lineside kit substantially, reduce industry costs, displace many points of failure and eliminate multiple obsolete systems.

Replacing lineside kit with kit that brings itself to the depot for maintenance should be seen as a win.

 

[mike57]

1. Terminate some trains at Cornbrook

Which I cant see happening. The need to change is going to negate the service improvements. Manchester already struggles with the Pic-Vic connection, tram is not included in National Rail journeys, which would be a quick fix, and introducing a further 'terminus' would not work.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Should it operate to Warrington Central, would you suggest the service begins in Southport ( Ormskirk presently) or should it considering the length of this stopping service operate from the shorter branch from Headbolt Lane ? I think the Liverpool Central to South Parkway should receive more services., particularly for Liverpool Airport passengers, which are increasing.

Given Headbolt Lane already needs battery trains, it seems a perfect fit if batteries were to be used on the new section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given Headbolt Lane already needs battery trains, it seems a perfect fit if batteries were to be used on the new section.

I was thinking that, though it depends on the battery range and charging speed as to whether you would get enough of a charge in between Fazakerley and South Parkway (on the assumption they'd follow a similar pattern to Kirkby) to run from Headbolt and to Warrington including the layover there. It might be (given that you would need to fit batteries to more units anyway) that with a long unelectrified section it's better to keep it with Southport, or to fit fewer units Ormskirk.

I think there will be a need to look at how many services go past Central to at least Baltic once that opens. 2tph in the evening is unlikely to be enough, and I seem to recall there isn't a plan to provide turnback facilities at Baltic so anything going past Central will presumably need to go to at least South Parkway? Though given how much slack there is in the present Ormskirk service (it's presently ten minutes slower than in the 1990s) one would wonder if adding a turnback facility at Baltic and just extending the Ormskirks to there to reverse instead of Central (with Hunts X connected back to Southport) would make sense, thus giving 8tph to Baltic (6 off peak/Sunday). You'd need a shortish layover at that end, but it would probably be OK as long as a reasonable one remained at the Ormskirk end.

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

Given that Warrington Central has two platforms (and two tracks) do you literally mean buffer stops? Or could Liverpool trains run into platform 1 (and back again), and Manchester trains use platform 2 (or the other way round: off the top of my head I'm not sure which side is p1 and which p2 - and whether the pointwork allows reversing towards L'pool/Manc) while leaving the tracks running through but generally unused?

I don't think it would have to be physical buffer stops, after all Ellesmere Port has exactly the sort of (mostly unused) through arrangement you describe. However it is essential that Merseyrail does not have to work alongside long distance services over Castlefield which are notorious for being unpunctual and have been for years because of the amount of interaction they have with other services. Thus any through facility remaining would have to be used by exception.

Arguably not having buffer stops would be more of an issue for Metrolink as they would need to use a different design of vehicle to be tram-train compatible (crashworthiness).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The last thing Manchester needs is yet another major station in the centre.

The rail service is already fragmented as it is.

I tend to agree. Surely Castlefield corridor would or should have way higher priority.

 

[The Pelican]

It always seems to me that Manchester city could do with more terminating capacity around the edge, apart from for the four and six track southern approach to Piccadilly. Broadly, any tunnel carrying trains from the west towards Piccadilly will only solve the problem for a short period of time. Everything has to go through either four Victoria platforms or two Picadilly platforms (perhaps evetually expanding to four). Any scheme to expand these is a good idea, and should be pursued as well. Nonetheless, the demand for paths through Deansgate means that CLC trains have to compete with Chat Moss, Salford Crescent and Ordsall Chord trains. So a way to to turn CLC trains back without interacting with Castlefield trains would be good. In a sense, some sort of CLC equivalent to running Chat Moss or Salford Crescent trains to Victoria is needed- a less useful terminus that still allows trains to turn around.

The main reason to go for a four track Cornbrook is that very frequent metrolink service is already there, and since a four platform station would be useful even if a tunnel is built nearer to Deansgate, the investment wouldn't be wasted if the cash for a better long term option comes along- a four platform "cornbrook CLC" would continue to provide a useful interchange

 

[cle]

I agree. This would add some complexity but also frequency along a route that really could support a metro service, if it was well served.

And given these would be 2-3 car diesels, they have no place in Castlefield really. That should be reserved for 4-5+ car services only.

Tram train would be ideal, but how to get up / down!

Or make every service on the CLC today a stopper/ A B pattern. Increase service from Victoria to WBQ to become the fast service between those places. Chat Moss is for Liv-Manc. Others like Birchwood and Widnes can suck it up.