Salford Crescent extra platform, was it the right choice?

[markymark2000]

I'm confused by the posts from both @markymark2000 and @zwk500 . I think @markymark2000 might be confused by the platform numbers (west to east 2 - 1 - 3) and @zwk500 has invented a non-existent Stalybridge-Blackpool train!

You'd be correct. I did mess up on the platform numbers. Sorry. I've also edited my post.

The condensed answer is that the train from the Bolton line can be brought into Platform 3 (albeit on restricted aspects) while a train from Manchester Victoria is routed into Platform 1 (which requires crossing over briefly) and a train is signalled from Manchester Piccadilly into platform 2 as a completely parallel move.
This will allow the train from the Bolton direction to make it's station call while the train from Manchester Victoria is crossing in front of it, or making it's own station call. It would no longer need to wait for the slower train to depart before accessing a platform.

That's good to hear then. Least train from Bolton can have an extra green signal (of course a few signals back) and not have to faff waiting for platforms.

 

[Paul AC]

Thanks to both @markymark2000 and @zwk500 for their admissions and amendments.

 

[MarkyT]

That's good to hear then. Least train from Bolton can have an extra green signal (of course a few signals back) and not have to faff waiting for platforms.

That's the main benefit I agree.

A notional future final layout for Salford Crescent could be a twin island arrangement with an extra track threaded through the University Road West bridge under the station entrance building and main road.

This would be a back face for the new platform 3, which already provides all the access needs, though significant public road and pedestrian bridge alterations would be required to fit around the changes for a 4th platform. Crescent northbound would need new surface turns to replace the underpass for access to the University. The road looks wide enough to accommodate extra turn lanes if required. A single lane road or a cycle/pedestrian path might still fit alongside the new track through the wide underpass. The old signal box building would be removed, with any operational signalling, comms or power equipment within relocated.

My ultimate layout would use both Atherton and Bolton routes, which run fairly closely parallel for a mile or so before diverging, to create around a mile of four track infrastructure, paired by direction, between Salford Crescent and a new grade-separated junction complex near Agecroft. Here a rerouted Manchester-bound line from Atherton flies over a new rerouted Bolton-bound line and joins the Manchester-bound Bolton line for the run into Crescent station. So both NBs would be accommodated on the former Atherton line, both SBs on the former Bolton line.



A matching grade separation is provided south of Salford Crescent station.



Here's a track and signalling layout with a notional very high intensity service pattern simulated.

 

[zwk500]

A matching grade separation is provided south of Salford Crescent station.

What gradient does this option require?

 

[The Planner]

Just providing a better junction at Windsor Bridge would help by allowing parallel moves off Salford to Vic and Picc, its about 80m of track.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just providing a better junction at Windsor Bridge would help by allowing parallel moves off Salford to Vic and Picc, its about 80m of track.

But what you'd ideally want is paired by direction island platforms, because then you can have cross platform interchange between Vic routes and Castlefield routes. I guess that's what that rather expensive idea is about in part?

 

[zwk500]

But what you'd ideally want is paired by direction island platforms, because then you can have cross platform interchange between Vic routes and Castlefield routes. I guess that's what that rather expensive idea is about in part?

That would be ideal, but what do you do with University Road West, the station entrance, and the building on the NE corner of the station site (which is labelled on Google maps as the Manchester North Signal Centre)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would be ideal, but what do you do with University Road West, the station entrance, and the building on the NE corner of the station site (which is labelled on Google maps as the Manchester North Signal Centre)?

Er, relocate it all? Buildings and roads aren't incapable of being moved for major rail projects.

It would be costly, but it would be effective.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The road probably isn't too important anyway
It's been closed for the past year while the new platform was built.

 

[zwk500]

Er, relocate it all? Buildings and roads aren't incapable of being moved for major rail projects.

It would be costly, but it would be effective.

Would it be more effective than costly though? I expect not, at least not until the signalling centre's been moved for other reasons.

It's not impossible to change trains using a footbridge either. Otherwise we'd never be able to have more than 2 platforms in each direction.

 

[The Planner]

But what you'd ideally want is paired by direction island platforms, because then you can have cross platform interchange between Vic routes and Castlefield routes. I guess that's what that rather expensive idea is about in part?

Yes, but as the saying goes, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but as the saying goes, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

I'd argue that the current work is degrading the connecting passenger experience significantly in a context where we ideally want to simplify service patterns which means more changing. Keeping it the same is one thing, worsening it is another entirely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2026 ==

It's not impossible to change trains using a footbridge either.

It is a considerable degradation of interchange quality. If you eventually convinced Sandgrounders to accept an all-Victoria via Atherton service you aren't going to convince them to have to walk over a footbridge for connections to Castlefield.

I despair at how unserious the UK is about network benefits. Without prioritising quality connections, we're never going to get away from "hourly direct trains from everywhere to everywhere".

 

[Elecman]

Manchester North Signalling Centre was relocated to Manchester South and West signalling centre at Edgeley. The building is however a major signalling supply point and a training school

 

[zwk500]

It is a considerable degradation of interchange quality. If you eventually convinced Sandgrounders to accept an all-Victoria via Atherton service you aren't going to convince them to have to walk over a footbridge for connections to Castlefield.

I hope these people never need to change train at Birmingham New Street, Crewe or Preston - there'll be a riot!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope these people never need to change train at Birmingham New Street, Crewe or Preston - there'll be a riot!

If you were proposing removing someone's well-used (to the extent any Northern DMU service is) and highly valued direct trains in favour of a change at one of those that isn't cross- or same-platform, I expect they would be very unhappy.

This is in effect what's being done to Sandgrounders. And they reasonably don't like it.

I totally recognise the value of DMU Southport-Atherton-Vic and EMU Wallgate-Bolton-Castlefield as the pattern (at least until the bi-modes are built), but we really do need to provide for high quality interchange, and what's being done at Salford Crescent has instead seriously downgraded it. Cross or same-platform is fine, over a bridge is not good enough.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I would much rather have more resilience to delays, the cost of using some stairs is almost a 0 value in that equation.

If Southport - Atherton - Victoria happens it will still be possible to get to Castlefield without using stairs by changing at Hindley for Bolton and picking up the Castlefield train there.
If mobility is such an issue they can do that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would much rather have more resilience to delays, the cost of using some stairs is almost a 0 value in that equation.

That's classic railway. Operational convenience over passenger convenience.

If Southport - Atherton - Victoria happens it will still be possible to get to Castlefield without using stairs by changing at Hindley for Bolton and picking up the Castlefield train there.
If mobility is such an issue they can do that.

You are seriously suggesting two changes? That's deeply unserious.

As ever, the Swiss would never tolerate nonsense like this.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

That's classic railway. Operational convenience over passenger convenience.

Is running trains more on time not passenger convenience?

You are seriously suggesting two changes? That's deeply unserious.

I'm saying if climbing some stairs is such an issue they can do that.
The timings might work that it's just as fast as changing once.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is running trains more on time not passenger convenience?

It's a fair point, but were there really no better options?

The timings might work that it's just as fast as changing once.

If everything calls at Ince or Hindley and the timings work both ways (i.e. no more than 5 minutes' wait both ways*) Ince or Hindley might offer a sensible single change. But Salford Crescent has more potential for that as it wouldn't just have the Wallgate starters but also the Blackpools.

A double change is unacceptable, though. Nobody but an enthusiast would consider that on a journey of only about an hour.

One does slightly wonder if it'd actually be cheaper (because it could be funded by selling/leasing properties) if sorting out the issue of the Wallgate bridge might be the real solution, then the EMUs would terminate at Wallgate, not North Western, and so be a quality connection there. Though Crescent would still have the advantage of offering people from Blackpool/Preston who want Victoria a quality connection too.

* Your real ideal in the double-island flyover situation is that both trains arrive and depart at once, dwelling at Crescent for a couple of minutes for bidirectional interchange. Now that would be a quality connection, but the UK even struggles to achieve the mentality for that even on metro systems.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

If everything calls at Ince or Hindley and the timings work both ways (i.e. no more than 5 minutes' wait both ways*) Ince or Hindley might offer a sensible single change. But Salford Crescent has more potential for that as it wouldn't just have the Wallgate starters but also the Blackpools.

Currently the train to Stalybridge connects with the Cumbria -> Airport at Bolton, which doesn't stop at Salford Crescent.
I'd hope that this 3rd platform would allow that train to stop at Salford Crescent, but probably not.

Your real ideal in the double-island flyover situation is that both trains arrive and depart at once, dwelling at Crescent for a couple of minutes for bidirectional interchange. Now that would be a quality connection

Agreed

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently the train to Stalybridge connects with the Cumbria -> Airport at Bolton, which doesn't stop at Salford Crescent.

Is that not now pick up/set down only at Bolton?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Is that not now pick up/set down only at Bolton?

The Transpennine Express is, the Northern isn't.

 

[MarkyT]

What gradient does this option require?

Approaching from Victoria, a gentle ramp likely not exceeding 1:100 rising would be required from Oldfield Rd bridge to the flyover. The descent into the platforms at Salford Crescent might be steeper, and would not normally be used by ascending freight traffic in the reverse direction. The SB lines might drop a little from the platform ends to create vertical clearance. There are no underbridges in this area to complicate this. All subject to detailed survey and design of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2026 ==

An alternative layout for Salford Crescent with a revised flat junction to the north of the station and a grade separation at Windsor Bridge South Jn.

I think there's insufficient space for a grade separation at the north end of the station due to the proximity of road overbridges. That is why I located the flyover near Agecroft in my previous suggestion.

 

[TheGoodDoctor]

The road probably isn't too important anyway
It's been closed for the past year while the new platform was built.

Just a point on the importance of the road: University Road West is the only way of getting to the University of Salford and Salford Crescent taxi rank from the Westbound A6/The Crescent. People are adapting but having to use the very busy Albion way to approach from the South or using Frederick Road from the North which gets regularly congested.

Would be interesting to see the data if this has made a more noticeable impact on the station's taxis or the university's deliveries.