Adding 400m platforms to Manchester Piccadilly

[Topological]

No plans for it have been published yet, but the political agreement behind the January announcement of NPR was that Manchester would get an underground station at Piccadilly.

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


It's currently planned to close in the mid-2030s

The announcement is here: Heidi Alexander to Parliament

Work also starts now for the Second Phase - West of the Pennines – with major construction planned for the 2030s.

It includes a new route and predominantly new line between Liverpool and Manchester.

This will run via new stations – improving access to Manchester Airport from across the North and North Wales, and to Warrington Bank Quay, with plans to deliver thousands of new homes.

I have today instructed my officials to immediately resume work on the adapted hybrid Bill, so we can reach planning consent for the parts of the route in Manchester.

These plans align with the prospectus of the Liverpool-Manchester Railway Board and I’d like to thank all of them, including the chair of that board, the former Rail Minister Huw Merriman, who is also backing our plans today.

Mr. Speaker, the Third Phase, which takes us to the 2040s, will improve connectivity across the Pennines over and above the Transpennine Route Upgrade currently underway.

And I see Bradford to Manchester, Leeds to Manchester, and Sheffield to Manchester as key routes we will upgrade.

Mr Speaker, if we are to secure Britain’s long term growth, we must also recognise future capacity and connectivity is needed along other major routes – such as the West Coast Main Line – and ensure that this is reflected in our decision making now.

I can therefore confirm this government’s long-term aim to see a full new north-south line from Birmingham to Manchester.

That’s one of the reasons why we have chosen the Liverpool to Manchester route, as put forward by local mayors, because it’s the only route that properly preserves our ability to ultimately build a new line south to address longer-term congestion and crowding challenges on the West Coast Main Line.

Again, this won’t be a revival of HS2 and no decisions have been taken on the specification or timetable.

It is known that there are some who prefer an underground station. The debate is done to death. TFGM mention it here: TFGM link

Greater Manchester leaders welcome transformational Northern Powerhouse Rail plans​

13 January 2026 at 22:30

• Joint work to start immediately with Government on detailed plans and business case for new Liverpool-Manchester railway – which will act as major catalyst for growth
• Options including a modern, underground station at Manchester Piccadilly to be developed to drive major regeneration and growth in Greater Manchester and across the North
• Railway key part of the Northern Growth Corridor that could add £90bn in additional GVA to the UK
• Greater Manchester’s economy is already outstripping the rest of the country and investment in Northern Powerhouse Rail will ensure it remains the growth capital of the UK

Greater Manchester’s leaders have welcomed the government’s major growth plan for the North and its firm commitment to delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR).
NPR is at the heart of plans to deliver faster commutes, better jobs, more homes and increased investment, strengthening connections between Manchester, Manchester Airport, Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Huddersfield, Warrington, York, Newcastle, Chester and North Wales. Careful design will ensure that the Manchester stations are integrated into the Bee Network to ensure that the benefits are felt across Greater Manchester.

The Chancellor has announced that £1.1 billion has been committed over this Spending Review period to support delivery of NPR, allowing progress on planning, development, and design work to begin.

The entirely new line between Liverpool and Manchester - via Warrington and Manchester Airport - will be delivered as part of the second NPR phase in the 2030s, and work will begin immediately to develop the project plans and business case in more detail.

As part of this, Greater Manchester and government will work together to explore how an underground solution at Manchester Piccadilly would be a catalyst and enabler for major regeneration and economic growth in Greater Manchester and across the North, by unlocking land for redevelopment.



The preferred underground option would see trains run through the station, providing better, more reliable and quicker services and connections to/from West Yorkshire and beyond, future-proofing the station to accommodate growing passenger numbers for decades to come, keeping people connected to jobs, homes and opportunity and ensuring that the city region remains the growth capital of the UK.

Of course if you have seen any announcement of an underground station then I would be interested to see.

 

[AlexSJW]

In particular, we should be aiming to remove all regional traffic to Manchester Airport (and freight traffic) off the Castlefield Corridor so that it can be reserved entirely for local commuter services.

Use Castlefield Corridor and all viaducts for Metrolink only. NPR designed to soak up heavy rail. HS2 from Stoke/Stone terminating at Piccadilly.

 

[The Planner]

It's currently planned to close in the mid-2030s

I know that is the intention, but until Parkside is built (and that has a lot of its own issues) its not going anywhere.

 

[Austriantrain]

The announcement in January was that the feasibility of an underground station would be reexamined. There’s no guarantee it won’t come back with the same answer as last time, a surface station is cheaper, quicker to build, and still provides the majority of the benefits compared to an underground one.

It really depends what you want. Neither HS2 nor NPR need a through station, and there is no reason to build a terminal underground. What Manchester presumably wants is for the HS2/NPR projects to pay for an underground through station which will really be used for other things. I can imagine an S-Bahn/regional express tunnel through Manchester work very well, but it is an entirely different project and discussion (and would not need 400m platforms).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It really depends what you want. Neither HS2 nor NPR need a through station, and there is no reason to build a terminal underground. What Manchester presumably wants is for the HS2/NPR projects to pay for an underground through station which will really be used for other things. I can imagine an S-Bahn/regional express tunnel through Manchester work very well, but it is an entirely different project and discussion (and would not need 400m platforms).

I think I'd probably look at a cut and cover tramway tunnel to turn Metrolink into a premetro (keeping some on the surface like Den Haag) and conversion of Castlefield to a metro style service like the Liz/Thameslink, with longer distance trains redirected to a rebuilt Victoria. I too don't think a through tunnel for intercity trains would be good value.

400m platforms are still useful at Picc though, and converting the centre ones to this should be feasible, I've thought this before. Replacement shorter platforms could be built on the car park to the north of P1.

 

[HSTEd]

I can imagine an S-Bahn/regional express tunnel through Manchester work very well, but it is an entirely different project and discussion (and would not need 400m platforms).

400m platforms would still be useful in an S-bahn type configuration because they would allow multiple trains to load/unload simultaneously during disruption.

Also the idea of through ~300m trains going to places like Leeds isn't absurd, especially if HS2 or successors manages to get closer to Manchester.

We're not that far from the fastest route from Leeds to London being via Manchester in the absence of the Eastern branch.

 

[Austriantrain]

400m platforms would still be useful in an S-bahn type configuration because they would allow multiple trains to load/unload simultaneously during disruption.

I don't think anyone could justify the massive expenditure for 400 m underground platforms only for that.

Also the idea of through ~300m trains going to places like Leeds isn't absurd, especially if HS2 or successors manages to get closer to Manchester.

We're not that far from the fastest route from Leeds to London being via Manchester in the absence of the Eastern branch.

Yes, but overground terminus-style 400m platforms as originally planned are enough for this.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think anyone could justify the massive expenditure for 400 m underground platforms only for that.

The cost of 400m underground platforms over shorter ones will depend pretty much entirely on the construction method selected.

If you only need two platforms, you could adopt the Barcelona Metro "stacked platforms in tunnel" approach using a large diameter TBM. If you do that, the length of the platform has very little impact on the cost of the scheme.

Even if you use a more conventional method, I am sceptical building a 200m or 250m platform is going to save much over a 400m one.

Yes, but overground terminus-style 400m platforms as originally planned are enough for this.

At the cost of several minutes (especially now ATO has been deleted from the HS2 specification), yes. I also seem to recall that that proposal requires a big viaduct in East Manchester which is unlikely to be popular with the population or local government, although that may have changed.

 

[Austriantrain]

At the cost of several minutes (especially now ATO has been deleted from the HS2 specification), yes. I also seem to recall that that proposal requires a big viaduct in East Manchester which is unlikely to be popular with the population or local government, although that may have changed.

Even without ATO, you can turn a train around in 4 minutes if you exchange the driver (who, on a high frequency railway, could simply "step back"). So almost no time lost. All approaches would be new built anyway, so you could avoid the max 15 oder 20 or 25 mph on approach which hampers many older terminal stations.

How would you have NPR proceed north/east of Piccadilly? Would it also make sense for local and regional service? That - a dual-purpose underground station - would be the only rationale IMO for an underground through 400m platform station, and even then, you will import reliability problems you might otherwise avoid and have little capacity left, considering NPR will have a 6 tph frequency.

 

[squingo44]

Manchester-Scotland services need 400m trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester-Scotland services need 400m trains

They really don't. They need longer than the present 5 cars (120m), but 200m would probably be ideal.

 

[squingo44]

They really don't. They need longer than the present 5 cars (120m), but 200m would probably be ideal.

Based on the current network, maybe not. But a proper intercity rail network for the UK wouldn't skip past both Manchester and Liverpool on the way to the Scotland - Manchester is the obvious choice for a through station, and would nucleate a huge number of additional trips to and from Scotland from across the rest of the north of England, or even beyond, if a through station were built.

There are a huge number of places from which travel to and from Scotland simply doesn't happen because the connectivity doesn't exist. And if Manchester is built as a terminus station, it never will.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are a huge number of places from which travel to and from Scotland simply doesn't happen because the connectivity doesn't exist. And if Manchester is built as a terminus station, it never will.

This just isn't true. Manchester Piccadilly as a through station would not enable through services to Scotland from any station that does not currently already have them other than Old Oak Common which presently has no train services at all as it doesn't exist yet (and will get a direct Glasgow anyway).

I really struggle with the benefits for the cost of a through intercity tunnel in Manchester. It would cost a lot less to resolve the issues with the regional and local services.

 

[HSTEd]

Even without ATO, you can turn a train around in 4 minutes if you exchange the driver (who, on a high frequency railway, could simply "step back"). So almost no time lost. All approaches would be new built anyway, so you could avoid the max 15 oder 20 or 25 mph on approach which hampers many older terminal stations.

This is true if the system is self contained enough that all drivers can be expected to have similar route knowledge.
I'm not sure a system like NPR/HS2/surrounding railways would be that self contained though.

It could easily turn into a rostering nightmare, so I am sceptical that the railway would approve it.

How would you have NPR proceed north/east of Piccadilly? Would it also make sense for local and regional service? That - a dual-purpose underground station - would be the only rationale IMO for an underground through 400m platform station, and even then, you will import reliability problems you might otherwise avoid and have little capacity left, considering NPR will have a 6 tph frequency.

I don't think local services would be that involved, because in the long run most of them are probably going to Metrolink or Metrolink adjacent arrangements anyway. But one of my central thoughts on the UK railway is that regional and intercity services increasingly blur into each other - see the current Transpennine Arrangements as an example.

I think, if NPR is going to be worth proposing at all, I think you have to head out of Manchester north-east on a new alignment, almost certainly in tunnel, and get as far towards Marsden as you can.
The existing route west of Marsden is tightly constrained by housing and is windy - I don't think it can ever be a suitable long distance railway. If that is not achievable for budgetary reasons then I'd suggest a connection to the line between Victoria and Ashton-under-Lyne.


I'd suggest a stopping pattern of something like:

4tph Liverpool-NPR-> Manchester Airport-Manchester Piccadilly -> Leeds via NPR -> TPE destinations
4tph London-HS2-WCML->Manchester Airport-Manchester Piccadilly->NPR to Leeds
2tph XC from the south-Manchester Airport-Manchester Piccadilly -> NPR to Leeds -> TPE destinations
2tph Wales->Mid-Cheshire Line-> Manchester Airport-Manchester Piccadilly-> Leeds via NPR. (The Mid Cheshire is right next to the Airport so take it over, extend Metrolink to Ashley)

That's 12.

With modern train control and the shortest achievable signal blocks, it should be possible to stack trains to reduce the platform reoccupation time, especially for shorter regional trains. In disruption this would resemble the RER with trains arriving as the previous ones are leaving, or two short trains at opposite ends of the platform moving off almost together with the second accelerating more slowly to clear the platform for the next train(s).


You can probably get a 3-4 more paths before it completely saturates and I'd consider a Scotland facing branch but that would probably need quite a long tunnel out of Manchester so may not be worth it, especially if London-Manchester-Leeds traffic grows and needs more than 4 400m class trains.

 

[squingo44]

2tph Wales->Mid-Cheshire Line-> Manchester Airport-Manchester Piccadilly-> Leeds via NPR. (The Mid Cheshire is right next to the Airport so take it over, extend Metrolink to Ashley)

Why can't these services go via Warrington Bank Quay and the new Liverpool Manchester Railway?

There would also be Birmingham Curzon Street-Manchester-Leeds services to think about, unless you roll them all in with the XC services.

Half of the services to leeds from the south could be redirected to serve Scotland instead.

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

This just isn't true. Manchester Piccadilly as a through station would not enable through services to Scotland from any station that does not currently already have them other than Old Oak Common which presently has no train services at all as it doesn't exist yet (and will get a direct Glasgow anyway).

I really struggle with the benefits for the cost of a through intercity tunnel in Manchester. It would cost a lot less to resolve the issues with the regional and local services.

You say that like the one doesn't have an impact on the other.

Current regional services need to use the Castlefield Corridor and Styal line, with a turnback at Manchester Airport. They're limited in capacity, frequency, and reliability. They have to interline with local services.

An underground through station at Manchester Piccadilly would allow for faster, more frequent, and more reliable regional services to Manchester Airport and beyond, while at the same time freeing up the Castlefield Corridor for purely local services - resolving the very issues you say you struggle to see an underground through station solving.

Admittedly, more work would also be needed than just building the intercity tunnel, such as grade separating the approach into Manchester Piccadilly. But freeing up the castlefield corridor for solely local services is one of the best reasons for building an underground through station at Piccadilly.

 

[HSTEd]

Why can't these services go via Warrington Bank Quay and the new Liverpool Manchester Railway?

They could, but going via the Mid Cheshire to the airport probably won't be significantly slower than up to Warrington and across, and ultimately just feeds into the same bottleneck of the Airport-Piccadilly tunnel in any case.
So you might want even more trains to serve both!

There would also be Birmingham Curzon Street-Manchester-Leeds services to think about, unless you roll them all in with the XC services.

Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester via Handsacre (ignoring any more HS2 track) is likely to be competitive than the classic route through Wolverhampton, so there is something to be thought about there.

Half of the services to leeds from the south could be redirected to serve Scotland instead.

One of the annoyances of going via Manchester to Leeds is that we will struggle to stop Manchester passengers eating up space on the Leeds trains, so I think they will have to be relatively high frequency. Of course you could extend them to TPE destinations to make use of spare capacity beyond Manchester, but I think 4tph London-Manchester-Leeds is a necessity, as we will struggle to stop the traffic 'defecting' even if we don't strongly advertise it, journey planners are not all under the railway's control after all!

EDIT:
A chunk of 2 400m class trains to Leeds might be enough for a while, but doesn't leave that much growth margin.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Half of the services to leeds from the south could be redirected to serve Scotland instead.

I don't see what need there is for additional Scotland services over and above what HS2 P2 would provide and what is already there. All that's needed is to run full length trains on the existing service pattern as far as Manchester to Scotland is concerned, either by procuring some 200m units (could be a good use for spare HS2 units?) or doubling up 397s and running to both Glasgow and Edinburgh every hour, splitting/joining at Carlisle.

Otherwise your proposals wouldn't give anyone south of Manchester a service to Scotland that doesn't already have one.

You say that like the one doesn't have an impact on the other.

Current regional services need to use the Castlefield Corridor and Styal line, with a turnback at Manchester Airport. They're limited in capacity, frequency, and reliability. They have to interline with local services.

Regional and local is and always will be the same thing in the Manchester area. Any line that could have been turned into a self contained Merseyrail style arrangement is already part of Metrolink, aside from Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple which are planned for Metrolink at some indeterminate point. Metrolink could certainly be improved with a city centre third crossing in (shallow, mostly cut and cover) tunnel that would allow the busiest services to be operated using triple or even quadruple trams in time (though obviously with a load of platform extensions).

I would envisage a Castlefield based "S-Bahn-Manchester" to carry, using uniform rolling stock e.g. double 3 car 331s, something like this:

2 Blackpool
2 or potentially 4 CLC depending on the pattern (truncate the Norwich and Cleethorpes to Picc main trainshed)
2 Wigan Wallgate via Bolton
and 2-4 others which can be debated somewhat, but perhaps sensibly would be Stalybridge to Airport via Ordsall.

All would run to the airport and would be the only services from Manchester to Manchester Airport other than those on the NPR line.

Anything else would go to Victoria instead.

The concept is more Thameslink than Merseyrail.

An underground through station at Manchester Piccadilly would allow for faster, more frequent, and more reliable regional services to Manchester Airport and beyond, while at the same time freeing up the Castlefield Corridor for purely local services - resolving the very issues you say you struggle to see an underground through station solving.

There is no such thing as "purely local services" around Manchester. All of them have been converted to Metrolink already.

Admittedly, more work would also be needed than just building the intercity tunnel, such as grade separating the approach into Manchester Piccadilly. But freeing up the castlefield corridor for solely local services is one of the best reasons for building an underground through station at Piccadilly.

Improving Victoria so the standard of the facilities meets that at Picc, and demolishing the Arena to create 6 or 8 through 400m platforms (mostly used in halves), would be a LOT cheaper.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

There is no such thing as "purely local services" around Manchester. All of them have been converted to Metrolink already.

Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple are purely within the TFGM fares area, as such that is why they are first in line for joining the Bee Network.

New Mills stoppers are just outside of the boundary at New Mills itself but are easily local services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hadfield/Glossop and Rose Hill Marple are purely within the TFGM fares area, as such that is why they are first in line for joining the Bee Network.

New Mills stoppers are just outside of the boundary at New Mills itself but are easily local services.

Sorry, I missed those ones but mentioned them later. However they (well, Rose Hill and Hadfield) are targetted for Metrolink at some point and are not relevant to Castlefield or NPR (nor indeed do they require 400m platforms or anywhere near it ).

You could argue that Atherton was, but as long as that remains unwired it'll always be a regional service to Southport/Headbolt.

 

[edwin_m]

Based on the current network, maybe not. But a proper intercity rail network for the UK wouldn't skip past both Manchester and Liverpool on the way to the Scotland - Manchester is the obvious choice for a through station, and would nucleate a huge number of additional trips to and from Scotland from across the rest of the north of England, or even beyond, if a through station were built.

There are a huge number of places from which travel to and from Scotland simply doesn't happen because the connectivity doesn't exist. And if Manchester is built as a terminus station, it never will.

This would make journeys between Scotland and London (and intermediate stations) slower due to a diversion via Manchester, and reduce capacity between Manchester and London because those passengers would have to share a train with Scotland passengers.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

This just isn't true. Manchester Piccadilly as a through station would not enable through services to Scotland from any station that does not currently already have them other than Old Oak Common which presently has no train services at all as it doesn't exist yet (and will get a direct Glasgow anyway).

So nothing possible from Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent or even Wilmslow?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So nothing possible from Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent or even Wilmslow?

Not off HS2 P2, no, as it doesn't serve any of those places.

If there was desire to operate one now it would be possible to do so, and I think XC may have operated one in the past?

A 400m through station at Piccadilly has no effect on this.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

If there was desire to operate one now it would be possible to do so, and I think XC may have operated one in the past?

Avanti have run London - Stockport - Glasgow services (with several more stops) before, but those were diversions during engineering works near Warrington/Wigan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Avanti have run London - Stockport - Glasgow services (with several more stops) before, but those were diversions during engineering works near Warrington/Wigan.

Yes, it's generally reckoned that calling Euston-Manchester services at P13/14 is a non-starter because they would struggle to cope with the passenger numbers. I suppose the 400m subterranean platforms would help for that, but it's a lot of money just to give those stations a train service to Scotland, so the justification is weak.

I think the original "convert the centre surface platforms to 400m and build replacement shorter platforms on the car park" option is cheaper and more sensible. With the change you could do 400m platforms at Crewe (if there aren't already), Preston and Carlisle, allowing the 200-400 thing to work properly for the whole WCML (bar Liverpool, but two 200m an hour is fine for that).

 

[edwin_m]

With the change you could do 400m platforms at Crewe (if there aren't already), Preston and Carlisle, allowing the 200-400 thing to work properly for the whole WCML (bar Liverpool, but two 200m an hour is fine for that).

There were studies done on all three over a decade ago and they were all relatively straightforward. However, I think Crewe couldn't take 400m trains stopping and continuing towards Manchester, as the tracks diverge part way down the platform.

 

[squingo44]

This would make journeys between Scotland and London (and intermediate stations) slower due to a diversion via Manchester, and reduce capacity between Manchester and London because those passengers would have to share a train with Scotland passengers.

And why wouldn't a diversion via Manchester be worthwhile? Manchester's important enough to be a destination in its own right. With NPR, it will be at the centre of connectivity to the rest of the North. Capacity between London and Scotland and London and Manchester would be more limited in the long run if they have to be run as separate services.

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

I don't see what need there is for additional Scotland services over and above what HS2 P2 would provide and what is already there. All that's needed is to run full length trains on the existing service pattern as far as Manchester to Scotland is concerned, either by procuring some 200m units (could be a good use for spare HS2 units?) or doubling up 397s and running to both Glasgow and Edinburgh every hour, splitting/joining at Carlisle.

Otherwise your proposals wouldn't give anyone south of Manchester a service to Scotland that doesn't already have one.

What you're missing here is the capacity and frequency of Manchester-Scotland services. Due to the constraints of the current network, Manchester really can't function as an effective hub for connectivity to Scotland. There just aren't the seat numbers or the frequency for people to make the journey into Piccadilly and then onwards to Scotland. An underground through station at Piccadilly changes that equation.

Never mind the fact that current passenger behaviour indicates a lack of demand for connectivity between the North and Scotland. There isn't any connectivity good enough to be worth making the trip. If it gets built, a high speed connection between Manchester and Scotland would fill up fast, inducing demand that couldn't be modelled by looking only at passenger behaviours on the current network.

 

[Zomboid]

You wouldn't want to fill the London to Lancashire/ Scotland trains with London to Manchester passengers. A proper HSL through Manchester with non-platforn fast lines might make sense, and a junction for Leeds would mean that London to Leeds trains wouldn't need to stop at Manchester either.

Though of course if there was something like 6-8 tph to Manchester, the loading on trains that run beyond might spread itself out to not cause problems to traffic for Leeds/ Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

Improving Victoria so the standard of the facilities meets that at Picc, and demolishing the Arena to create 6 or 8 through 400m platforms (mostly used in halves), would be a LOT cheaper.

I'm very sceptical that you could get that for much less than a tunnel with a two platform intercity station with platforms in a large TBM bore, plus access shafts.

Compulsory purchase of the arena is going to run hundreds of millions before you start. I also think you would have to demolish several other buildings to get the approaches in.

And Victoria doesn't actually get you much in the way of capacity given its still in the middle of the flat junction mess that is Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you're missing here is the capacity and frequency of Manchester-Scotland services.

Hourly is perfectly fine, it's not a metro. Capacity is an issue, but that was because of the poor decision to go from 8.350 (160m in a high density layout) to 5.397 (120m in a low density, mostly tables layout). This was a significant capacity reduction, though admittedly some 350 services were 4 car which was inadequate.

If the 397s had been 7 or 8 car we wouldn't be having this discussion. Ergo, the fix for this issue is simple and relatively cheap - new trains, of the same length as the platforms at Manchester Airport station (which is the only constraint* preventing something like an 11 car Pendolino working them).

* Yes, Oxford Road too, but traditionally the Scotland services didn't call there and they don't have to now either.

Due to the constraints of the current network, Manchester really can't function as an effective hub for connectivity to Scotland. There just aren't the seat numbers or the frequency for people to make the journey into Piccadilly and then onwards to Scotland. An underground through station at Piccadilly changes that equation.

As I said hourly is perfectly adequate. Why do you think Manchester-Scotland needs to be higher frequency than Euston-Glasgow? It clearly does not. It just requires trains of a proper length. So for that matter does TPE - why are we talking about hugely costly extra lines when we could just be running ten car trains on TPE and providing more capacity than we could ever want?

Short trains on excessive frequencies are a 1990s "solution".

Never mind the fact that current passenger behaviour indicates a lack of demand for connectivity between the North and Scotland. There isn't any connectivity good enough to be worth making the trip. If it gets built, a high speed connection between Manchester and Scotland would fill up fast, inducing demand that couldn't be modelled by looking only at passenger behaviours on the current network.

There is no credible proposal whatsoever for a high speed line from Manchester to Scotland, so you can forget that. The only way that could ever be built would be if HS2 was completed to Phase 2 and ScotGov funded it, but it wouldn't go via Manchester.

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

I'm very sceptical that you could get that for much less than a tunnel with a two platform intercity station with platforms in a large TBM bore, plus access shafts.

Compulsory purchase of the arena is going to run hundreds of millions before you start. I also think you would have to demolish several other buildings to get the approaches in.

And Victoria doesn't actually get you much in the way of capacity given its still in the middle of the flat junction mess that is Manchester.

It has other benefits, such as making travelling to other places from the utter dump that is Victoria a pleasant experience rather than purgatory in the form of something akin to old New St with additional diesel fumes pumped in. The only nice bit of Vic is the tramstop, at least while the seagulls have a day off from pecking holes in the roof. The mainline station is utter purgatory, one of the nastiest main stations in the country and totally unfit for purpose. It thus needs a complete rebuild anyway.

It was fine when it was just a DMU version of Merseyrail, of course, but it's much more now.

 

[edwin_m]

And why wouldn't a diversion via Manchester be worthwhile? Manchester's important enough to be a destination in its own right. With NPR, it will be at the centre of connectivity to the rest of the North. Capacity between London and Scotland and London and Manchester would be more limited in the long run if they have to be run as separate services.

Because Manchester is important enough to have services to both London and Scotland, without inconveniencing those who have no reason to divert through Manchester. And important enough that its services to London don't need to have Scotland passengers taking up seats.

Building an underground HSR stations and tunnel under Manchester is going to be more expensive than building some HSR infrastructure in open country to provide extra capacity for Scotland services by the more direct route, potentially including Manchester-Scotland services.