Plans for Castlefield Corridor

[The Planner]

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.

You still have Brewery and Philips Park to deal with, slow and an increased amount of TRU traffic. You'd be at Vic long before you got near to Picc.

 

[Manutd1999]

Without significant upgrades the service pattern through Castlefield will always be a compromise. I'd start by thinking about which long-distance services could be moved elsewhere.

The TfW is an obvious choice - it could terminate at Victoria once sidings are built to the east or ideally run to Piccadilly via the Mid-Cheshire line, providing a semi-fast service along that route at the same time.

The TPE Cleethorpes is another option, it could be moved back into the Piccadilly main shed without much fuss.

TPE services from Saltburn could terminate at Victoria but I would resist this as it's the easiest way of maintaining a Victoria-Airport link. There's a good argument to make this 2ph IMO, with the TPE which currently terminates at Vic also extending through Castlefield.

The services to Scotland and Barrow stay as they don't really have anywhere else to go, so that gives 5ph long-distance through Castlefield (2x Leeds/onwards, Scotland, Barrow, Liverpool-Norwich).

After that it's a case of dividing up the remaining paths between the various commuter lines.

 

[Topological]

IF you tried to run Manchester Victoria with just 2 through platforms, what would happen?

This model assumes no trains terminate, and TPE are not allowed their long dwells. Any terminating trains from the west get pushed out to either Rochdale, Stalybridge, or get tacked onto existing eastbound trains.

RTT suggests very few terminating trains in the next hour, only one from Leeds seems to terminate on 5, but presumably could terminate on 1 if needed.

So, move Victoria to a 2-platform operation and then look at the EMU services. The target is 4tph to come from the Airport, via Castlefield, and use platforms 3 and 4 at Victoria to reverse back out to Liverpool/Wigan/Preston. These two, plus the 2 eastbound become 6tph via Castlefield and the Ordsall Curve. By removing the Southport and the Blackpool North trains there are less conflicts.

If the TPE to Liverpool via Warrington Central does not fit then put that back in the main shed.

For completeness, the TfW runs through Victoria (I believe you could possibly turn around and make the path back to save a unit) and onwards somewhere to reverse.

That leaves Castlefield with

2 x Oxford Road to Liverpool via Warrington Central
1 x Piccadilly to Liverpool via Warrington Central (EMR)
1 x Piccadilly to Liverpool via Warrington Central (TPE)
1 x Piccadilly to Scotland via Preston
1 x Piccadilly to Lakes via Preston
2 x Piccadilly to Victoria and East
4 x Piccadilly to Victoria and West (Liverpool, Wigan, Blackpool +)

Trains removed

1 x Liverpool via Chat Moss
1 x TfW
1 x Blackpool North
1 x Southport

So I have left the same number of trains on Castlefield, but there is now a metro service from the Airport to Victoria calling at all stops. Nothing is coming from the Chat Moss directly to Deansgate and only 2 trains per hour are coming from Salford Crescent directly to Deansgate. That should mean a lot less conflicts.

 

[Rail Quest]

The TfW is an obvious choice - it could terminate at Victoria once sidings are built to the east or ideally run to Piccadilly via the Mid-Cheshire line, providing a semi-fast service along that route at the same time.

I think there's a good argument for maintaining a direct service to Manchester Airport for Chester/North Wales residents. There was a link that was proposed to be built between Mouldsworth (mid-Cheshire line) and the airport so that the Welsh services could follow that route through the airport and terminate at Piccadilly. Perhaps this is an argument in favour of that being built

 

[Manutd1999]

The train from Chester takes 1hr25 to crawl it's way through Manchester to the Airport. Arguably passengers would be much better served with a direct coach from Chester station, timed to meet the TfW service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The TPE Cleethorpes is another option, it could be moved back into the Piccadilly main shed without much fuss.

You'd need to replace it on the CLC, though, otherwise that's a whacking service cut, and whatever you replaced it with has to use Castlefield.

 

[Manutd1999]

Yes but the replacement could perhaps go to the airport and/or run with a different stopping pattern. And reliability would be improved if it were de-coupled from Stockport/Sheffield/ECML

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes but the replacement could perhaps go to the airport and/or run with a different stopping pattern. And reliability would be improved if it were de-coupled from Stockport/Sheffield/ECML

There is a legitimate question of how much Liverpool and Warrington need a fast service beyond Manchester. I live in Liverpool*, so I am fully seized of the importance of it having services to many places - but as someone who commutes to Oxford Road I have no real feel for how many people stay on the train beyond Piccadilly. If it really isn't very many then cutting the fast Liverpool - Piccadilly service back to somewhere just beyond Manchester would presumably pay dividends in time keeping and reliability.

*OK, Bootle. But that's near enough for this discussion. And for reasons which make sense in the Cat household, I drive to South Parkway so am deprived of the chance to commute to Victoria.

 

[Rail Quest]

The train from Chester takes 1hr25 to crawl it's way through Manchester to the Airport. Arguably passengers would be much better served with a direct coach from Chester station, timed to meet the TfW service.

Yeah it's really slow at the moment, even if it manages to get through Castlefield quickly. But if a link was built between Mobberley and the Airport, not only could the TfW avoid Castlefield, but it would also reach the Airport far quicker. I'm unsure how long it would take, but it'd surely save at least half an hour for people going to the airport, and shouldn't take any longer to get into the city center. Plus, that should increase reliability by avoiding Castlefield, Chat Moss and Warrington

 

[The Planner]

Yes but the replacement could perhaps go to the airport and/or run with a different stopping pattern. And reliability would be improved if it were de-coupled from Stockport/Sheffield/ECML

That is adding another train between Picc and Slade Lane doing that.

 

[Manutd1999]

An alternative would be to prioritise a Manchester metro. You could have:
4ph Airport-Victoria-Stalybridge
4ph Airport-Bolton-Wigan/Blackpool
2ph Liverpool-clc-Oxford Road

The Airport trains would all use a standardised EMU rolling stock, 6+ car, with doors 'at thirds' so that dwell times can be minimised.

Regular connections would reduce the impact of Leeds/Chester/Southport losing direct access to Castlefield and ticketing could allow free connections between "Manchester Stations".

As many long-distance services as possible would then move elsewhere:
TPE Saltburn to terminate at Victoria
TPE Cleethorpes to terminate at Piccadilly
TfW to run via the mid-Cheshire to Piccadilly
Northern Barrow to terminate at Victoria or be merged with a TPE service to Leeds and beyond.

That leaves 2x long-distance trains (+1 freight) to squeeze in, which should be do-able.
1ph Liverpool-Sheffield-Norwich
1ph Airport-Scotland

You could cutback the Norwich train to Piccadilly but I assume direct Liverpool-Sheffield links are deemed too important to lose completely.

 

[The Planner]

An alternative would be to prioritise a Manchester metro. You could have:
4ph Airport-Victoria-Stalybridge
4ph Airport-Bolton-Wigan/Blackpool
2ph Liverpool-clc-Oxford Road

The Airport trains would all use a standardised EMU rolling stock, 6+ car, with doors 'at thirds' so that dwell times can be minimised.

Regular connections would reduce the impact of Leeds/Chester/Southport losing direct access to Castlefield and ticketing could allow free connections between "Manchester Stations".

As many long-distance services as possible would then move elsewhere:
TPE Saltburn to terminate at Victoria
TPE Cleethorpes to terminate at Piccadilly
TfW to run via the mid-Cheshire to Piccadilly
Northern Barrow to terminate at Victoria or be merged with a TPE service to Leeds and beyond.

That leaves 2x long-distance trains (+1 freight) to squeeze in, which should be do-able.
1ph Liverpool-Sheffield-Norwich
1ph Airport-Scotland

You could cutback the Norwich train to Piccadilly but I assume direct Liverpool-Sheffield links are deemed too important to lose completely.

That now adds 4 crossing moves at Water St, alongside the ones at Castlefield, offsetting any reduction in quantum.

I agree with others that connectivity to the airport from Warrington and North Wales needs to stay as it is. Same goes for Liverpool, you have reduced the amount of trains and slowed them down.

Again, lots of assumptions that Victoria is awash with capacity.

 

[Manutd1999]

I agree with others that connectivity to the airport from Warrington and North Wales needs to stay as it is.

Connectivity is limited to one train per hour, with an uncompetitive journey time vs road. Is that really the kind of service we should be protecting? Especially when said train is a short DMU, running under wires along a capacity constrained corridor.

 

[Chester1]

How about rebuilding Oxford Road within its current footprint as a three platform station, resignal the Castlefield Corridor and focus on lengthening the rolling stock using the congested infrastructure?

 

[Topological]

That now adds 4 crossing moves at Water St, alongside the ones at Castlefield, offsetting any reduction in quantum.

I agree with others that connectivity to the airport from Warrington and North Wales needs to stay as it is. Same goes for Liverpool, you have reduced the amount of trains and slowed them down.

Again, lots of assumptions that Victoria is awash with capacity.

That was why my version left in the Liverpool trains and had only two trains running from Oxford Road to Salford Crescent (Scotland and Lakes trains)

It may be worth noting that Chester to Manchester often routes with a change at Crewe, so it is likely that North Wales to the Airport could be better via Crewe connections too. Warrington to the Airport would be served by the CLC trains IF the EMR/TPE was split at Piccadilly.

 

[daodao]

How about rebuilding Oxford Road within its current footprint as a three platform station, resignal the Castlefield Corridor and focus on lengthening the rolling stock using the congested infrastructure?

I thought that this is actually the medium term plan.

Given that financial resources are tight, and are going to remain so for the long-term, the main aim should ideally be to make best possible use of the existing limited rail capacity in Manchester.

The 4 tracks through Victoria have essentially twice the capacity of the 2 track Castlefield line, so it is therefore desirable not to try to run too many trains, particularly long-distance ones apart from those from Liverpool via the CLC line to Sheffield and beyond, via Castlefield. Abandoning use of the Ordsall curve for passenger trains would eliminate the wasteful practice of trains calling at both Victoria and Castlefield line stations.

Reducing the number of crossing moves would also help, e.g.

• Using platforms 5 and 6 at Victoria for trains entering from the Atherton/Bolton and Rochdale directions, and linking them, where feasible
• Using platforms 3 and 4 at Victoria for trains entering from the Patricroft and Stalybridge directions, and linking them, where appropriate
• Running 2 tph local trains from the Standedge line [that are at most 4 carriages] into terminal platforms 1/2 at Victoria, and 2 tph semifast trains from Leeds via Standedge and Guide Bridge into platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly
• Using the Windsor Link to the Castlefield line just for 2 tph electric trains from Blackpool via Bolton
• Running all services that pass through Piccadilly platforms 13/14 to the Airport, other than the 2 tph from Liverpool via the CLC line to Stockport, Sheffield and beyond.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The latter is already the case, is it not?

 

[HSTEd]

I think any truly adequate solution to this problem is going to be expensive.

But I think the flat junctions are the major issue. Without the flat junctions, modern signalling and ATO in would let the platforms handle significantly more trains than at present, especially if you stopped everything at all three corridor stations.

This is why I suggest the eastern half of the CLC should be Metrolinked. It would eliminate a bunch of crossing moves, and the other flat junctions seem a little more amenable to structural interventions.

You'd need a flyover south of Piccadilly to help the trains flow in from the south, I think.

I don't think trying to shift traffic to Victoria is a good solution in the long run, it's got considerably worse transport connections at the end of the day. Even if the money flowing into the city centre has made it less remote than it once was.

 

[Chester1]

I thought that this is actually the medium term plan.

Given that financial resources are tight, and are going to remain so for the long-term, the main aim should ideally be to make best possible use of the existing limited rail capacity in Manchester.

The 4 tracks through Victoria have essentially twice the capacity of the 2 track Castlefield line, so it is therefore desirable not to try to run too many trains, particularly long-distance ones apart from those from Liverpool via the CLC line to Sheffield and beyond, via Castlefield. Abandoning use of the Ordsall curve for passenger trains would eliminate the wasteful practice of trains calling at both Victoria and Castlefield line stations.

Reducing the number of crossing moves would also help, e.g.

• Using platforms 5 and 6 at Victoria for trains entering from the Atherton/Bolton and Rochdale directions, and linking them, where feasible
• Using platforms 3 and 4 at Victoria for trains entering from the Patricroft and Stalybridge directions, and linking them, where appropriate
• Running 2 tph local trains from the Standedge line [that are at most 4 carriages] into terminal platforms 1/2 at Victoria, and 2 tph semifast trains from Leeds via Standedge and Guide Bridge into platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly
• Using the Windsor Link to the Castlefield line just for 2 tph electric trains from Blackpool via Bolton
• Running all services that pass through Piccadilly platforms 13/14 to the Airport, other than the 2 tph from Liverpool via the CLC line to Stockport, Sheffield and beyond.

Yes its the medium term plan and that is why I posted it to contrast with the more unusual suggestions. In the longer term the freight should hopefully be removed entirely by redevelopment of Old Trafford and the two projects combined should double capacity. Thats all that really needs to be planned for in detail. Ordsall chord needs a regular scheduled service to avoid a lot of political embrassement within and outside the industry. Too many people lobbied for it to be built.

 

[Grumpy]

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.

Indeed. The Planner has commented below "You still have Brewery and Philips Park to deal with, slow and an increased amount of TRU traffic. You'd be at Vic long before you got near to Picc." I assume you would reverse these in the eastern bays at Victoria(which seem relatively lightly used) before running on to Picc. TPE traffic will be approx 4-5 fasts and 2 slows which surely isn't an insurmountable problem. We would be talking about a run of just over 4 miles which surely could have a respectable journey time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2025 ==

I don't think trying to shift traffic to Victoria is a good solution in the long run, it's got considerably worse transport connections at the end of the day. Even if the money flowing into the city centre has made it less remote than it once was.

You wouldn't just be shifting it to Victoria, you'd be running it via Victoria to Picc i.e. easing the pressure on the route via Oxford Road. I should also be tempted to start the TPE Scottish services at Picc and run this way-the O&D stats show there aren't that many Scottish passengers from the Airport.

 

[The Planner]

Connectivity is limited to one train per hour, with an uncompetitive journey time vs road. Is that really the kind of service we should be protecting? Especially when said train is a short DMU, running under wires along a capacity constrained corridor.

It runs under wires from Acton Grange Jn. Nothing west of there is wired. Your suggestion makes the journey longer and less attractive via the Mid Cheshire line.

Any chance you can start replying or quoting correctly as well, people won't notice any specific responses unless you do so?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2025 ==

Yes its the medium term plan and that is why I posted it to contrast with the more unusual suggestions. In the longer term the freight should hopefully be removed entirely by redevelopment of Old Trafford and the two projects combined should double capacity. Thats all that really needs to be planned for in detail. Ordsall chord needs a regular scheduled service to avoid a lot of political embrassement within and outside the industry. Too many people lobbied for it to be built.

No way is Oxford Road and any potential relocation of the freight terminals doubling capacity. Oxford Road isn't unlocking a significant amount at all path wise.

 

[Chester1]

No way is Oxford Road and any potential relocation of the freight terminals doubling capacity. Oxford Road isn't unlocking a significant amount at all path wise.

I mean in terms of seats if longer platform lengths are fully utilised, in addition to a couple of extra services from singaling upgrades and no freight. There are still plenty of 70-80m trains using infrastructure that should be for 5x26m or 6x23m units. Its probably not quite double but wouldn't be too far off.

 

[flixtonman]

Further to posts 57, 59, 60, 61 and 80 about the Ardwick/Blind Lane Curve, is anyone able to direct me to Network Rail/Northern Hub/Metrolink reports where reinstatement of the route was considered? Might it have been useful for a metrolink shuttle service (as opposed to heavy rail) direct from an existing platform at Victoria to an existing one at Piccadilly?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Threads like this make you wish for what could have been with a Pic Vic tunnel...

 

[Chester1]

Further to posts 57, 59, 60, 61 and 80 about the Ardwick/Blind Lane Curve, is anyone able to direct me to Network Rail/Northern Hub/Metrolink reports where reinstatement of the route was considered? Might it have been useful for a metrolink shuttle service (as opposed to heavy rail) direct from an existing platform at Victoria to an existing one at Piccadilly?

Manchester / Northern hub proposals detailed various options for work near Piccadilly including flyovers in front of the station but did not consider reopening the curve. One the options considered would have used Philips Park line to link Victoria to Hope Valley line to run Liverpool - Sheffield services that avoided Piccadilly. Any proposal to reopen closed infrastructure will always be much more popular than completely new infrastructure, even if the latter is a better option.

Threads like this make you wish for what could have been with a Pic Vic tunnel...

Which would have been a metro tunnel. I am not even sure it was going to be a standard loading gauge. It would have solved some problems we have now but we wouldn’t have Metrolink.

 

[HSTEd]

Which would have been a metro tunnel. I am not even sure it was going to be a standard loading gauge. It would have solved some problems we have now but we wouldn’t have Metrolink.

Based on its near contemporary project in Liverpool, I think it would probably have been sized for PEP units.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Based on its contemporary project in Liverpool, I think it would probably have been sized for PEP units.

Yes, it would have been main-line loading gauge with OHLE. The proposed rolling stock even had a class number allocated Class 316

 

[Chester1]

Based on its near contemporary project in Liverpool, I think it would probably have been sized for PEP units.

Yes, it would have been main-line loading gauge with OHLE. The proposed rolling stock even had a class number allocated Class 316

I am surprised because that is a bigger tunnel diameter than the loop and link. There is no space for Merseyrail to have OHLE.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I am surprised because that is a bigger tunnel diameter than the loop and link. There is no space for Merseyrail to have OHLE.

The feeder lines to the south (Alderley Edge via Styal and Stockport) were 25kV AC and the Bury line to the north had its obsolescent system which needed replacing anyway, so it made sense.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose you could build a cut down underground alignment in Manchester that had only one running line and one platform per station.

That would let you use the surface Castlefield route in only one direction, eliminating most of the issues with the flat junctions.

That would undoubtedly be cheaper than a bidirectional underground solution, but I don't know how much cheaper.