CLC Route Upgrade Study

[Bletchleyite]

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.

I've proposed a service pattern like this before.

4tph end to end, Liverpool to Manchester.

Of those 4, 2 would call at all stations to Warrington Central, then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate then stations as appropriate to Manchester Airport.

The other 2 would call at South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Central then all stations to Manchester Oxford Road where they would terminate.

Operated using 3 car Class 195s.

This would provide an improved local service plus a reasonably fast service to either end for people in places like Widnes and Birchwood. It would mean the loss for Liverpool of the through Liverpool-Norwich service and the Cleethorpes, though, which would have to be redirected into the Piccadilly main train shed - there should be room for this as platform 12 is barely used at all and is on the correct side for these services. Consideration could also be given to sending the Cleethorpes back to Manchester Airport via a reverse, which I believe people are calling for. It would also only add 1tph to Castlefield, which could be mitigated by removing the Southport.

 

[LowLevel]

I've proposed a service pattern like this before.

4tph end to end, Liverpool to Manchester.

Of those 4, 2 would call at all stations to Warrington Central, then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate then stations as appropriate to Manchester Airport.

The other 2 would call at South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Central then all stations to Manchester Oxford Road where they would terminate.

Operated using 3 car Class 195s.

This would provide an improved local service plus a reasonably fast service to either end for people in places like Widnes and Birchwood. It would mean the loss for Liverpool of the through Liverpool-Norwich service and the Cleethorpes, though, which would have to be redirected into the Piccadilly main train shed - there should be room for this as platform 12 is barely used at all and is on the correct side for these services. Consideration could also be given to sending the Cleethorpes back to Manchester Airport via a reverse, which I believe people are calling for. It would also only add 1tph to Castlefield, which could be mitigated by removing the Southport.

The main issue with your plan infrastructure wise is Piccadilly platform 12 can't fit the 6 car trains used by TPE and EMR, unless I remember wrongly it's 4 car only.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The main issue with your plan infrastructure wise is Piccadilly platform 12 can't fit the 6 car trains used by TPE and EMR, unless I remember wrongly it's 4 car only.

Correct, platform 11 and 12 are listed as only 98 metres (just barely enough for 4 * 24m)

 

[cle]

This would provide an improved local service plus a reasonably fast service to either end for people in places like Widnes and Birchwood. It would mean the loss for Liverpool of the through Liverpool-Norwich service and the Cleethorpes, though, which would have to be redirected into the Piccadilly main train shed - there should be room for this as platform 12 is barely used at all and is on the correct side for these services. Consideration could also be given to sending the Cleethorpes back to Manchester Airport via a reverse, which I believe people are calling for. It would also only add 1tph to Castlefield, which could be mitigated by removing the Southport.

I agree with those long-distance changes as most demand is into Manchester itself and rightly as you say, the shed can take it. It would free up some paths via Castlefield which should be 6 cars + and via Bolton, probably!

Or Wigan NW. Per the Glasgow thread, an additional service up to at least Lancaster, but ideally beyond.

Stockport and Sheffield-Liverpool would be the biggest direct losses. Beyond that (on the Cleethorpes especially) is marginal demand. If Nottingham - Liverpool was a meaningful connection to keep, you could look at extending the Crewe-Derby service.

 

[Chester1]

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.

You only need to look at the multi year aggravation over Southport having / not having services to Piccadilly to see that it won't matter what mitigations are put in place.

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

The rail service is already fragmented as it is.

Cornbrook isn't in the city centre. I don’t like the idea of it being used to terminate any services but at the right cost a two platform station would be worth building as an interchange with Metrolink.

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

A four platform Cornbrook would be wildly expensive. It would require a huge amount of land purchase, demolition and construction. A two platform station would require some additional embankment but might be financially viable.

I've proposed a service pattern like this before.

4tph end to end, Liverpool to Manchester.

Of those 4, 2 would call at all stations to Warrington Central, then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate then stations as appropriate to Manchester Airport.

The other 2 would call at South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Central then all stations to Manchester Oxford Road where they would terminate.

Operated using 3 car Class 195s.

This would provide an improved local service plus a reasonably fast service to either end for people in places like Widnes and Birchwood. It would mean the loss for Liverpool of the through Liverpool-Norwich service and the Cleethorpes, though, which would have to be redirected into the Piccadilly main train shed - there should be room for this as platform 12 is barely used at all and is on the correct side for these services. Consideration could also be given to sending the Cleethorpes back to Manchester Airport via a reverse, which I believe people are calling for. It would also only add 1tph to Castlefield, which could be mitigated by removing the Southport.

Retaining and increasing 2tph between Liverpool and Sheffield is a strategic priority for TfN. Much of what makes sense on paper for Castlefield is a political deal breaker. I have long seen Castlefield congestion as primarily a political not a practical problem, the capacity of 11tph through Piccadilly and 2tph terminating at Oxford Road is adequate practically and economically. Every council and local MP wants services to Piccadilly and the airport and lobbies hard to gain or maintain a service for their area. It results in a lot of short trains running on congested infrastructure.

 

[mike57]

Increase service from Victoria to WBQ

Trouble is, no West facing bays at Vic, and back to the perennial problem that a Pic - Vic change can add half an hour to the journey. The majority of destinations are still served from Pic and with the failure of the Ordsal chord to deliver any meaningfull service because of Castlefield capacity you then need to take a tram.

My three take aways from this:
A quick fix: Why cant cross Manchester journeys include tram transfer between Pic/Deansgate and Vic, not having to faff around buying a ticket would be a start.
Longer term: Until Castlefield capacity issues are addressed properly any improvements are going to run into this problem.

Manchester also urgently needs some West facing terminating bays in the city centre, ideally at Pic, but until the previous issue is solved there is no point

 

[pokemonsuper9]

A quick fix: Why cant cross Manchester journeys include tram transfer between Pic/Deansgate and Vic, not having to faff around buying a ticket would be a start.

They do for journeys within Greater Manchester (or by splitting with a ticket wholely within)

 

[cle]

Trouble is, no West facing bays at Vic, and back to the perennial problem that a Pic - Vic change can add half an hour to the journey. The majority of destinations are still served from Pic and with the failure of the Ordsal chord to deliver any meaningfull service because of Castlefield capacity you then need to take a tram.

My three take aways from this:
A quick fix: Why cant cross Manchester journeys include tram transfer between Pic/Deansgate and Vic, not having to faff around buying a ticket would be a start.
Longer term: Until Castlefield capacity issues are addressed properly any improvements are going to run into this problem.

Manchester also urgently needs some West facing terminating bays in the city centre, ideally at Pic, but until the previous issue is solved there is no point

I understood that a new turnback was planned at Vic, as well as a potential west-facing bay (on the north side, west of the underground section) was also planned. If not then Rochdale beckons!

Agree fully on the free tram transfer (Cornbrook or otherwise) which contactless tapping can handle. It should be fully mode agnostic.

 

[Chester1]

Trouble is, no West facing bays at Vic, and back to the perennial problem that a Pic - Vic change can add half an hour to the journey. The majority of destinations are still served from Pic and with the failure of the Ordsal chord to deliver any meaningfull service because of Castlefield capacity you then need to take a tram.

My three take aways from this:
A quick fix: Why cant cross Manchester journeys include tram transfer between Pic/Deansgate and Vic, not having to faff around buying a ticket would be a start.
Longer term: Until Castlefield capacity issues are addressed properly any improvements are going to run into this problem.

Manchester also urgently needs some West facing terminating bays in the city centre, ideally at Pic, but until the previous issue is solved there is no point

The biggest issue is train lengths. Most of what we are talking about are 3-4 coach services and the treasury will not spend serious money on Castlefield until that changes. The planned three platform rebuild of Oxford Road around 2029 that will alow every service stopping there to be ~200m long. If a service doesn't justify five or six coaches then it shouldn't justify paths for Oxford Road, Piccadilly or the Airport. The CLC stoppers are an exception because they can't run to Victoria. If growth continues then major investment will be necessary but all the capacity problems can be dealt with for many years through lengthening the existing services.

 

[The Pelican]

Trouble is, no West facing bays at Vic, and back to the perennial problem that a Pic - Vic change can add half an hour to the journey. The majority of destinations are still served from Pic and with the failure of the Ordsal chord to deliver any meaningfull service because of Castlefield capacity you then need to take a tram.

My three take aways from this:
A quick fix: Why cant cross Manchester journeys include tram transfer between Pic/Deansgate and Vic, not having to faff around buying a ticket would be a start.
Longer term: Until Castlefield capacity issues are addressed properly any improvements are going to run into this problem.

Manchester also urgently needs some West facing terminating bays in the city centre, ideally at Pic, but until the previous issue is solved there is no point

Some West facing bays in the centre (or a west facing tunnel portal) would defineately be a good alternative to the Four-Platform Cornbrook I've suggested. Skyscrapercity suggestions in the past have included a reopened Manchester Central (would probably interfere with the convention centre) and some platforms on the Western approach to Victoria- probably a good idea but wouldn't be able to terminate trains from the CLC.

 

[Rail Ranger]

A turnback sliding is planned in the Miles Platting area (east of Victoria). Its construction has been delayed due to the Calder Valley route being used for TPE diversions during the TP Upgrade making possessions hard to obtain.

 

[Topological]

I've proposed a service pattern like this before.

4tph end to end, Liverpool to Manchester.

Of those 4, 2 would call at all stations to Warrington Central, then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate then stations as appropriate to Manchester Airport.

The other 2 would call at South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Central then all stations to Manchester Oxford Road where they would terminate.

Operated using 3 car Class 195s.

This would provide an improved local service plus a reasonably fast service to either end for people in places like Widnes and Birchwood. It would mean the loss for Liverpool of the through Liverpool-Norwich service and the Cleethorpes, though, which would have to be redirected into the Piccadilly main train shed - there should be room for this as platform 12 is barely used at all and is on the correct side for these services. Consideration could also be given to sending the Cleethorpes back to Manchester Airport via a reverse, which I believe people are calling for. It would also only add 1tph to Castlefield, which could be mitigated by removing the Southport.

This is an excellent plan.

However, why not use the longer distance services? People could stay on if they wished to have the through journey to Liverpool.

It is not as if either the Nottingham/Norwich or Doncaster/Cleethorpes need to be long distance stock. The 185s used on the latter could already do stopping as well.

 

[Chester1]

Some West facing bays in the centre (or a west facing tunnel portal) would defineately be a good alternative to the Four-Platform Cornbrook I've suggested. Skyscrapercity suggestions in the past have included a reopened Manchester Central (would probably interfere with the convention centre) and some platforms on the Western approach to Victoria- probably a good idea but wouldn't be able to terminate trains from the CLC.

In additon to the loss of the convention centre, there is now a skyscraper where part of the viaduct was and another (taller than Canary Wharf) will start construction soon. Reopening Manchester Central was always about nostalgia but now its pure fantasy.

 

[HSTEd]

A two platform station at Cornbrook is going to cost a substantial portion of the cost of a third city crossing tramway.

I can't see any advantage over doing that and converting the CLC to metrolink

 

[daodao]

A two platform station at Cornbrook is going to cost a substantial portion of the cost of a third city crossing tramway.

I can't see any advantage over doing that and converting the CLC to metrolink

Manchester Oxford Road station is due to be rebuilt in the next few years to provide a turnback platform of reasonable length for trains arriving from the west. This should be adequate for terminating half hourly stopping trains from the former CLC line to Liverpool. Electrifying this line throughout at 25kv AC would be the most sensible option, enabling these trains to be accelerated and reducing the need for skip stopping.

There is no capacity for running any more trams on the section of Metrolink between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester Oxford Road station is due to rebuilt in the next few years to provide a turnback platform of reasonable length for trains arriving from the west. This should be adequate for terminating half hourly stopping trains from the former CLC line to Liverpool. Electrifying this line throughout at 25kv AC would be the most sensible option, enabling these trains to be accelerated and reducing the need for skip stopping.

Oxford Road isn't the ultimate bottleneck though

The bottleneck is the mass of junctions itself and terminating at Oxford Road doesn't really help that very much.

There is no capacity for running any more trams on the section of Metrolink between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

Which is why a third city crossing would have to bypass that section.

 

[The Pelican]

The main problem with making the line Metrolink/merseyrail is that a fairly fast reigonal line is actually a more useful traffic generator than an all stops suburban service- on the other hand, if a technology can be found which allows a fast and a stopping train to operate, that's the obvious thing to do. Something like the Portsmouth Direct or Arun Valley lines which combine stopping with fast trains are really what is needed. No particular reason Merseyrail and Metrolink couldn't start express operations, of course.

In particular, I think the chance of the government actually funding the high speed Liverpool-Manchester line reduced a lot when the HS2 manchester branch was cancelled- so two fairly fast routes between the two cities are a useful thing to have.

 

[Bevan Price]

I find it hard to understand why some people want to worsen services between Warrington & Manchester / Liverpool.
Current fast trains between Warrington Central & Manchester Oxford Road typically take just under 20 minutes; using Bank Quay increases the journey time to about 30 minutes. Having only local serrvices between Central & Manchester and journey time becomes 35-40 minutes. And as for extending Metrolink to Warrington - a crazy idea. A single 2 coach dmu (158, 156, etc.) contains more seats that a pair of Metrolink trams. Even at a typical Metrolink frequency of every 12 minutes, there will be a lot fewer seats per hour than the current "heavy rail" service pattern. That mean more people probably forced to stand for long distances. Is that the way to encourage more rail travel ???

And similarly for Warrington / Liverpool travel. Leaving only slower, all stations services operated by 777s will do nothing to boost rail travel.

Yes - the CLC route ought to be electrified, but the next question is when ? Do they wait until the Hope Valley & other lines are electrified, in order to retain through services Liverpool to Sheffield & beyond, or do they divert the CLC "expresses" to some alternative destination such as Leeds/York ?

 

[Elecman]

A turnback sliding is planned in the Miles Platting area (east of Victoria). Its construction has been delayed due to the Calder Valley route being used for TPE diversions during the TP Upgrade making possessions hard to obtain.

Brewery Sidings turnback

 

[cle]

The main problem with making the line Metrolink/merseyrail is that a fairly fast reigonal line is actually a more useful traffic generator than an all stops suburban service- on the other hand, if a technology can be found which allows a fast and a stopping train to operate, that's the obvious thing to do. Something like the Portsmouth Direct or Arun Valley lines which combine stopping with fast trains are really what is needed. No particular reason Merseyrail and Metrolink couldn't start express operations, of course.

I don't think this is always the case. Look at the Altrincham line, which is the busiest and most metro-like in use. It is far busier than the days of the semi-fast trains... when frequency and modernity come along, often that predictability and uniformity of a metro, even with some minutes added, sees usage uptake.

There is far more suppressed demand in Urmston, Flixton, Irlam etc than Birchwood - and more buses and car journeys to be removed. We should prioritize people in the TTW city, not longer distance commuters - who are likely more captive and already on the train!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Electrifying the CLC will surely have some benefit for the Casrlefield corridor as electric trains accelerate faster?

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes - the CLC route ought to be electrified, but the next question is when ? Do they wait until the Hope Valley & other lines are electrified, in order to retain through services Liverpool to Sheffield & beyond, or do they divert the CLC "expresses" to some alternative destination such as Leeds/York ?

What's preventing the CLC expresses from being bi-modes or running under diesel under the wires?

 

[zwk500]

Electro ing the CLC will surely have some benefit for the Casrlefield corr as electric trains accelerate faster?

Although that is a benefit that could be realised with BEMU stock as well.

 

[mike57]

Electro ing the CLC will surely have some benefit for the Casrlefield corr as electric trains accelerate faster?

The bottleneck is the mass of junctions itself and terminating at Oxford Road doesn't really help that very much.

Obviously electrification will help, but I think Castlefield needs a much bigger upgrade to allow Manchester rail services to grow. Until Castlefield is sorted properly any other improvements are pointless, the Ordsal chord proved this point. I wouldn't even prioritise electrifying the CLC route until Castlefield is sorted, as Castlefield is where any available funding needs to go. The scheduled improvements at Manchester Oxford Rd are welcome, but really only a sticking plaster.

Also dont forget the exit point at the Eastern end, joining the tracks out of the main Pic platforms, another bottleneck with conflicting movements, thats the reason given for the old Scarborough Liverpool via CLC route service being cut.

Once Castlefield is sorted properly my first priority would be combine the Stalybridge - Vic local service and the Pic - Airport stoppers into a 2tph cross Manchester service via the Ordsal chord. This would solve a lot of connectivity problems between Pic and Vic, with a further two per hour TPE north services routed this way (which was the original intention) to give 4tph between the Airport and Stalybridge.

Another issue is Deansgate station, its only ~1/3 mile, ~600m from Oxford Road, and services eastbound services stopping there are potentially stopping following services clearing the mass of junctions to the west, so Ideally it should be closed, the problem is that it is now a significant interchange with Metrolink trams. How you deal with it, I dont know, but its another thorn in the side of improvements.

 

[daodao]

Obviously electrification will help, but I think Castlefield needs a much bigger upgrade to allow Manchester rail services to grow. Until Castlefield is sorted properly any other improvements are pointless, the Ordsal chord proved this point. I wouldn't even prioritise electrifying the CLC route until Castlefield is sorted, as Castlefield is where any available funding needs to go. The scheduled improvements at Manchester Oxford Rd are welcome, but really only a sticking plaster.

Also dont forget the exit point at the Eastern end, joining the tracks out of the main Pic platforms, another bottleneck with conflicting movements, thats the reason given for the old Scarborough Liverpool via CLC route service being cut.

Once Castlefield is sorted properly my first priority would be combine the Stalybridge - Vic local service and the Pic - Airport stoppers into a 2tph cross Manchester service via the Ordsal chord. This would solve a lot of connectivity problems between Pic and Vic, with a further two per hour TPE north services routed this way (which was the original intention) to give 4tph between the Airport and Stalybridge.

Another issue is Deansgate station, its only ~1/3 mile, ~600m from Oxford Road, and services eastbound services stopping there are potentially stopping following services clearing the mass of junctions to the west, so Ideally it should be closed, the problem is that it is now a significant interchange with Metrolink trams. How you deal with it, I dont know, but its another thorn in the side of improvements.

Electrifying the ex-CLC line won't adversely affect the Castlefield line and is a potential improvement that can be considered separately. The issues with the Castlefield line are due to trying to run too many trains onto it from the Ordsall direction, in particular long distance ones that are prone to delay. There is no easy or cheap way to enhance the Castlefield route as it is a 2 track line on a viaduct. It is better for most services that enter Manchester from the west via the former LNWR and LYR lines (particularly long-distance trains from Scotland, Wales and Yorkshire) to run to Manchester Victoria. Trains from the ex-CLC route have to run onto the Castlefield line.

 

[cle]

Certainly I think the North Wales service is an outlier, and should shift to Victoria, and be paired with the Chester-Leeds service. Standardise the WBQ service too.

That would free up something.

 

[Andy1978]

Obviously electrification will help, but I think Castlefield needs a much bigger upgrade to allow Manchester rail services to grow. Until Castlefield is sorted properly any other improvements are pointless, the Ordsal chord proved this point. I wouldn't even prioritise electrifying the CLC route until Castlefield is sorted, as Castlefield is where any available funding needs to go.

Definitely agree here. I believe there were plans to widen/replace the Castlefield corridor under the Northern Hub plans, but my googling skills are failing to find them.

I'd argue that dealing with the cross-city bottleneck is probably a higher priority on lots of grounds than e.g. NPR, but fixing bottlenecks is less glamorous than building a new line.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe there were plans to widen/replace the Castlefield corridor under the Northern Hub plans, but my googling skills are failing to find them.

As part of the same plan as the Ordsall Curve, Oxford Road would have been lengthened and Piccadilly would have had platforms 15 and 16 added. Net result would have been two useable platforms for each direction at each station, maximising the use of the two-track section since the platform dwell times constrain the capacity today. Only the Ordsall Curve part ever got funding.

Having said that, with six flat junctions within a radius of a mile or so, I think it would always have been pretty fragile.

 

[Chester1]

As part of the same plan as the Ordsall Curve, Oxford Road would have been lengthened and Piccadilly would have had platforms 15 and 16 added. Net result would have been two useable platforms for each direction at each station, maximising the use of the two-track section since the platform dwell times constrain the capacity today. Only the Ordsall Curve part ever got funding.

Having said that, with six flat junctions within a radius of a mile or so, I think it would always have been pretty fragile.

I agree about the fragility. 16tph through Castlefield would have been very fragile without massive investment elsewhere. It would have added another point of failure because it would have meant joining services from the west with services through Stockport. The only junction that would be easy to grade seperate would be Ordsall Lane. The other junctions are constrained by nearby features or lack of land. There is no obvious solution and I guess thats why its a topic loved on this subforum, there are multiple options from small to multi billion but no outstanding one.