Plans for Castlefield Corridor

[jfollows]

Why do passengers from Southport, and stations to Wigan, have to continue being deprived of a direct service to the Airport?
We also have luggage, and some of us have reduced mobilities that make changing trains uncomfortable at best!!!

At least today there might be a cross-platform or same-platform change at Salford Crescent, which may no longer exist when the new platform opens.

 

[Topological]

Currently, the TPE services are quite busy, so I'd say the market is good.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2025 ==


Why wasn't it 4 tracked in the first place?

It was not 4-tracked because it was not the main line.

Services from Bolton/Wigan could only go to Victoria prior to the building of the "Windsor Link" between what is now Salford Crescent and the Chat Moss line. Hence that demand for Castlefield paths was not there. (That includes the current Blackpool North, Lakes, Scotland and Southport trains which are now on Castlefield but physically could not have been)

Other services ran into Manchester Central prior to its closure.

We cannot unbuild the Windsor Link, but I do believe we have to seriously look at ways to minimise the number of trains using it.

 

[snail]

I'm not sure there is: but Piccadilly and Victoria are linked by tram and free bus. It had occurred to me that a similar free bus from Victoria to the Oxford Road area (i.e. where people are actually going as their end destination rather than up the hill to Oxford Road station) would be a desirable mitigation for losing the through train.

There used to be but it was poorly used so consolidated into the current two routes. It is possible to change at Portland Street to get from Victoria to Oxford Rd (but probably quicker to walk!)

free bus

free bus – free travel around Manchester city centre

tfgm.com

 

[amahy]

Why do passengers from Southport, and stations to Wigan, have to continue being deprived of a direct service to the Airport?
We also have luggage, and some of us have reduced mobilities that make changing trains uncomfortable at best!!!

And stations on the Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington line.
And stations on the Calder Valley line.
And stations on the Hazel Grove and Buxton line.
And stations on the Hope Valley line.
And stations to Glossop and Rose Hill Marple.
etc.

You can't have trains from everywhere going to everywhere, or the whole timetable would collapse!

 

[Mgameing123]

Why do passengers from Southport, and stations to Wigan, have to continue being deprived of a direct service to the Airport?
We also have luggage, and some of us have reduced mobilities that make changing trains uncomfortable at best!!!

Wouldn’t that be better solved with level boarding?

 

[faltskog36abba]

Why do passengers from Southport, and stations to Wigan, have to continue being deprived of a direct service to the Airport?
We also have luggage, and some of us have reduced mobilities that make changing trains uncomfortable at best!!!

My Mum who is in a Wheelchair would like a direct service to Saint Anne's to see her sister. She lives in Kearsley, So she would have to change twice at Bolton or Wigan then Preston, There Isn't enough capacity to fit direct trains.

 

[Elecman]

Parkside doesn't solve any issues between Crewe and Winwick, namely power and capacity. Unless you solve those then you are just moving the Trafford Park problem elsewhere.

Installing the new 400Kv GSP at Penwortham and completing the ATS from Crewe to Catterall would greatly assist with those issues though

 

[The Planner]

Installing the new 400Kv GSP at Penwortham and completing the ATS from Crewe to Catterall would greatly assist with those issues though

How long has/is that taking though? Its still a while away.

 

[biggerisbetter]

On a separate note, is it a fair comment to say that, in retrospect, scaling down Manchester Victoria during its remodelling by such a drastic extent was a bad idea? The policy of forcing most traffic through Castlefield and Piccadilly has been detrimental for performance on that section, and, given how tight the space is at Victoria with the arena, I can't imagine it's possible to expand it.

The Arena was first mooted in the 1980s and started construction in 1993. I don’t think it is realistic to suggest that the growth in rail use that has occurred over that time and in Manchester as a whole could realistically been conceived at that point. Without regeneration initiatives such as the arena, would the growth in Manchester has been as strong?

There are things that are being done (east facing siding at Salford Central, west facing siding at Victoria), and could still be done (longer trains, west facing bay(s)) to increase the capacity of Victoria beyond its current capacity without reaching the ceiling imposed by the presence of the arena.

That said, if usage continues to grow at Victoria there are other improvements that may be needed such as improved toilet facilities, a couple of further ticket barriers and potentially improved display screens and waiting areas.

 

[Rail Quest]

The Arena was first mooted in the 1980s and started construction in 1993. I don’t think it is realistic to suggest that the growth in rail use that has occurred over that time and in Manchester as a whole could realistically been conceived at that point. Without regeneration initiatives such as the arena, would the growth in Manchester has been as strong?

There are things that are being done (east facing siding at Salford Central, west facing siding at Victoria), and could still be done (longer trains, west facing bay(s)) to increase the capacity of Victoria beyond its current capacity without reaching the ceiling imposed by the presence of the arena.

Very fair points. Train length in and around Manchester is definitely another problem that is perhaps more realistically fixable in the short/medium term. 2-car DMUs on some of the diagrams out of both Victoria and Piccadilly are a real capacity limiter.

 

[Topological]

Very fair points. Train length in and around Manchester is definitely another problem that is perhaps more realistically fixable in the short/medium term. 2-car DMUs on some of the diagrams out of both Victoria and Piccadilly are a real capacity limiter.

This did make me start to think about splitting/joining outside Manchester, but that is a different thread so I started one.

The problem comes where there are destinations which do not really warrant longer trains on the extemities.

 

[Trackman]

It was not 4-tracked because it was not the main line.

Services from Bolton/Wigan could only go to Victoria prior to the building of the "Windsor Link" between what is now Salford Crescent and the Chat Moss line. Hence that demand for Castlefield paths was not there. (That includes the current Blackpool North, Lakes, Scotland and Southport trains which are now on Castlefield but physically could not have been)

Other services ran into Manchester Central prior to its closure.

We cannot unbuild the Windsor Link, but I do believe we have to seriously look at ways to minimise the number of trains using it.

I wonder what the situation would be now sans Windsor link and Man Vic not desecrated but redeveloped? (with the metrolink and free buses in place)

 

[mike57]

The reason Castlefield crops up as a discussion point is because the solutions are hugely expensive, but it is without doubt the biggest single bottleneck and service restriction on rail services not only in Manchester, but further afield.

In a situation like this I would always look at the least cost, quick to deliver solutions first.

So a simple one in top spot, controversial, possibly, close Deansgate station and make alternative arrangements for tram link passengers connections. Its too close to Manchester Oxford Road station, and trains stopping there, particularly eastbound services cause following trains to block the junctions to the west.

Sending more trains into Manchester Victoria then introduces the issue of connectivity between Pic and Vic, which is a serious impediment, a 10-15 minute connection from 13-14 at Pic to the main station turns into a 30-40 minute connection between the two stations. Its also an issue if you have impaired mobility or luggage. But a simple win would be to include tram transfer with all tickets that involve a Pic-Vic change

As well as Castlefield the throat of Manchester Piccadilly is another bottleneck

So another possibly controversial one, No TPE North or South to cross the throat and head down Castlefield or to the airport. There is room to build two more platforms fairly easily to the NE of platform 1 and the scale of works look to be fairly simple. This then gives more room for terminating TPE services, The Airport service then becomes a dedicated shuttle from, ideally, dedicated platforms, maybe alternating fast and stopping services. That removes a couple more services from Castlefield. Costs for this should be realistic. Also make Man Pic 'set down only' on long distance services to the Airport from the North and West, if local commuters twig it, fine, but but dont show them on departure boards. This would help to ease overcrowding on 13/14.

Once you have done the easy stuff you are then into either major surface redevelopment or an underground tunnel, both of which feel completely out of reach at the moment. However if you are spending money I would try and improve Pic capacity rather than sending more services to Vic. The underground option sounds good, but I believe there are various non rail tunnels under Pic and the surrounding area, so may not be easy.

 

[JamesT]

As well as Castlefield the throat of Manchester Piccadilly is another bottleneck

So another possibly controversial one, No TPE North or South to cross the throat and head down Castlefield or to the airport. There is room to build two more platforms fairly easily to the NE of platform 1 and the scale of works look to be fairly simple. This then gives more room for terminating TPE services, The Airport service then becomes a dedicated shuttle from, ideally, dedicated platforms, maybe alternating fast and stopping services. That removes a couple more services from Castlefield. Costs for this should be realistic. Also make Man Pic 'set down only' on long distance services to the Airport from the North and West, if local commuters twig it, fine, but but dont show them on departure boards. This would help to ease overcrowding on 13/14.

That area NE of Piccadilly is where the HS2 station was meant to go. As far as I’m aware the land is all still safeguarded for NPR or if that bit of HS2 is ever resurrected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So another possibly controversial one, No TPE North or South to cross the throat and head down Castlefield or to the airport. There is room to build two more platforms fairly easily to the NE of platform 1 and the scale of works look to be fairly simple. This then gives more room for terminating TPE services, The Airport service then becomes a dedicated shuttle from, ideally, dedicated platforms, maybe alternating fast and stopping services. That removes a couple more services from Castlefield. Costs for this should be realistic. Also make Man Pic 'set down only' on long distance services to the Airport from the North and West, if local commuters twig it, fine, but but dont show them on departure boards. This would help to ease overcrowding on 13/14.

I think you might misunderstand the idea behind the current pattern - pretty much everything from 13 goes to the Airport (bar the Norwich and Cleethorpes) and that's because it's on the correct side of the formation for that. Two platforms wouldn't be enough to use it as a terminus so if you removed the Airport services from there where would you send everything? 13 doesn't have a major overcrowding problem precisely because of the limited number of destinations - 14 is much more of an issue because people are waiting for a wide range of destinations.

As for solving 13/14, I have wondered if changing it to side platforms might solve some of the problems (i.e. the overcrowding with people), by cantilevering a replacement platform 14 off the viaduct and keeping the present island as 13A/B only with the other side fenced off, with trains to the Airport calling only at one end and via Stockport at the other, which would spread people out. That would be a lot cheaper than a whole additional viaduct. Unlike 15/16 it wouldn't do anything if a train was immobilised there, but that doesn't happen that often. I've said the same of Liverpool Central, which has an island in the middle of a station box with a load of unused space in the corners that could be platform space.

 

[mike57]

As far as I’m aware the land is all still safeguarded for NPR or if that bit of HS2 is ever resurrected.

Yes I think it is, but given the likelyhood of HS2 ever reaching Manchester, or NPR happening, it would be better to go for a 'now' solution and use the land for a deliverable project which would deliver benefits in a much shorter timescale. If at some (very) future date plans for either NPR or HS2 in Manchester get beyond talk then space would need to be found, but if you had NPR and HS2 in a dedicated station then pressure on the 'conventional' platforms would be relieved anyway so the need for additional platforms would diminish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I think it is, but given the likelyhood of HS2 ever reaching Manchester, or NPR happening, it would be better to go for a 'now' solution and use the land for a deliverable project which would deliver benefits in a much shorter timescale. If at some (very) future date plans for either NPR or HS2 in Manchester get beyond talk then space would need to be found, but if you had NPR and HS2 in a dedicated station then pressure on the 'conventional' platforms would be relieved anyway so the need for additional platforms would diminish.

Build 400m platforms and you tick off both even if the full length is rarely used. The chance of Berne gauge "captive" HS2 stock ever being built in our lifetimes is probably close to nil, but being able to run double HS2 sets at very busy times would be rather handy.

 

[The exile]

The problem comes where there are destinations which do not really warrant longer trains on the extemities.

It’s only a problem if those extremities would have to be rebuilt expensively to accommodate long trains which they themselves would never need or / and when those “extremities” actually make up the majority of the route.

 

[mike57]

by cantilevering a replacement platform 14 off the viaduct

Could you go for cantilevers on both 13 & 14, and adopt the 'Spanish solution' Doors open one side to start offloading (on to an empty platform), and then doors on the otherside open to start loading. The alight side would be fairly quiet as people would clear the platform quickly so passenger flow would improve. Thinking further cantilevers would be boarding side as this would segregate 13 and 14 passengers.

 

[The exile]

Could you go for cantilevers on both 13 & 14, and adopt the 'Spanish solution' Doors open one side to start offloading (on to an empty platform), and then doors on the otherside open to start loading. The alight side would be fairly quiet as people would clear the platform quickly so passenger flow would improve.

That “solution” works less well when people need to interchange between trains using the same platform.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you go for cantilevers on both 13 & 14

I'm not sure you could because the track to 12 would be in the way, both sides of the viaduct would only be available if you relocated the platforms a fair way west of their present location. Though I did see a while back an original layout plan that did show there being a short platform to the 13 track roughly on the present trackbed of 12...

 

[The Planner]

Sticking the platforms on the sides doesn't get rid of the curvature problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That “solution” works less well when people need to interchange between trains using the same platform.

I'm not a fan of the idea either as it'd slow train movements and be confusing, but there probably doesn't need to be much such interchange because the origin (north) or destination (south) of most trains is the same, i.e. the Airport, and what interchange there is could be done at Oxford Road instead which in normal operations only really uses two platforms for through services (and post rebuild will only have two through platforms).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2025 ==

Sticking the platforms on the sides doesn't get rid of the curvature problems.

There isn't a way to get rid of the curvature problems bar putting them underground. But the curvature problems don't cause an issue with passenger numbers anyway - they just require more dispatchers on longer trains than a straight platform would.

A downside of cantilevering 14 off the viaduct would be making that convex, though, which would require more dispatchers than at present or provision of cameras to assist the guard. Presently 14 is concave so sighting is reasonably OK.

Another option I've toyed with in the past is swapping the ends so the present 13 end is used for westbound and the 14 end for eastbound, as the 13 end is wider.

 

[mike57]

That “solution” works less well when people need to interchange between trains using the same platform.

People coming from the West will change at Oxford Road, how many people arrive at Pic on 14 from the East/South and change to a train going back out East/South from 13, maybe some Airport <> TPE south/EMR Nottingham flows, but not much else. No longer cross platform, but no worse than any other Pic change.

 

[Topological]

It’s only a problem if those extremities would have to be rebuilt expensively to accommodate long trains which they themselves would never need or / and when those “extremities” actually make up the majority of the route.

That issue was what prompts the whole splitting/joining debate and only sending part of what goes through the Castlefield Corridor to each of the extremities.

In the Manchester case most trains only need to split in the North/West because the destination to the East is Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem comes where there are destinations which do not really warrant longer trains on the extemities.

It's not really a problem as long as there isn't something like a platform length constraint that can't be dealt with with selective door opening. Pretty much every London commuter route has trains that are quiet at the outer end. In any case, which service going west from Platform 14 doesn't justify reasonably long trains? You're probably only talking the Southport and nothing else.

 

[Grumpy]

Has any thought been given to reinstating/recreating the curve at Ardwick as an alternative through route between Victoria and the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly?

 

[The Planner]

Lots of suggestions of adding trains to Vic, its not exactly awash with capacity to do that.

 

[Topological]

Has any thought been given to reinstating/recreating the curve at Ardwick as an alternative through route between Victoria and the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly?

This one comes up a lot. However, the curve does not connect with the easternmost track at Piccadilly and therefore involves a lot more crossing moves.

There is an opportunity to build a new curve before all the land gets developed, but the route of the disused viaduct is not suitable.

There will also need to be consideration as to how HS2/NPR interact.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

This one comes up a lot. However, the curve does not connect with the easternmost track at Piccadilly and therefore involves a lot more crossing moves.

There is an opportunity to build a new curve before all the land gets developed, but the route of the disused viaduct is not suitable.

There will also need to be consideration as to how HS2/NPR interact.

The Ardwick Curve ('Blind Lane Curve') historically didn't historically connect with the 'Eastern' tracks but it could easily do so. The issue is that the bridge over Ashton Old Road and part of the embankment is missing but there is no development in the way to enable reinstatement. This would enable Calder Valley services to reach the low-numbered 'GC' platforms at Piccadilly without conflict.