Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[JonathanH]

An electrified siding could be created east of Victoria for the Scotch express, and the diesel N.Wales service could run to Newton Heath depot if necessary.

Isn't the premise that action is needed now rather than once some additional infrastructure work (eg installing sidings and changing signals) or driver training (eg TFW staff learning Newton Heath) can be completed.

If money is to be spent on sidings it might as well be spent on the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hard to believe delays would cause an issue as the passengers would be on the same train as the luggage: if one is delayed then so is the other

Er, why would passengers have to be on the same train as luggage? Rail does not have such a rule (and air only does to an extent - it's more that the passenger shouldn't have a way to wilfully put a bag on a different flight with something nefarious in it - if your bag is delayed it will fly without you). Eurostar registered luggage often *doesn't*, and that is the most secure UK train service.

In any case, if you want to stuff up the Styal Line just go randomly delaying services while they wait for bags.

It's a non-starter.

 

[Philip]

Yes, the Airport (or possibly the Stockport bays) is the only suitable place to terminate it.



Do you propose to sacrifice the fast service from Wigan to Manchester via Parkside?

Mayfield Loop or Longsight sidings could hold the Scottish trains?

I don't think running via Parkside is essential for the fast service via Wigan; now that the Bolton line is faster, there won't be much difference in running via Westhoughton.

 

[JonathanH]

Mayfield Loop or Longsight sidings could hold the Scottish trains?

That doesn't move them from the Castlefield corridor and would actually result in worse punctuality than splitting the passenger boarding / alighting between Oxford Road, Piccadilly and the Airport. You would spend extra time at Piccadilly making sure they are empty rather than dispatching them to the Airport.

 

[Greybeard33]

Isn't the premise that action is needed now rather than once some additional infrastructure work (eg installing sidings and changing signals) or driver training (eg TFW staff learning Newton Heath) can be completed.

If money is to be spent on sidings it might as well be spent on the Castlefield corridor.

Quite. Most of the solutions offered on this (and other) threads are, at best, long term (years not months). Either they are not compatible with the existing infrastructure, and/or they involve some combination of new rolling stock/franchise remapping/a major timetable recast, with repercussions far beyond Manchester.

For example, rerouting the TPE Leeds - Airport services via Guide Bridge and terminating them in the Piccadilly main shed instead (a perennial favourite on RailUK) would be impractical. Picc Platforms 1 - 4 are pretty much maxed out with the existing services. Increases in train length have reduced the scope for multiple occupancy. Likewise it is a non-starter to terminate these services at Victoria. The Vic bay platforms 1 & 2 are too short for TPE's new 5-car trains.

Before May 2018 there were 8 passenger services per hour between Oxford Road and Piccadilly; although far from perfect, the timetable worked passably well. IMO a reasonable near term objective would be to prune services back to that level, but by "quick and dirty" culling of services from the current 11tph timetable, with only local changes, rather than attempting to roll back the 2018 recast.

Comparing the current Oxford Road - Piccadilly timetable with pre-2018, there are now 6 Northern services (+2), 3 TPE (+1), 1 EMR (same) and 1 TfW (same). Breaking these down between the major corridors out of Manchester, but ignoring the changes to the cross-Manchester linkages, we have:

• Liverpool via Warrington: 2tph (no change)
• Chester/beyond: 1tph (no change)
• Liverpool via Chat Moss: 1tph (no change)
• Southport: 1tph (no change)
• Preston/beyond: 4tph (+1tph)
• Leeds/beyond via Victoria: 2tph (+2tph)
• Leeds/beyond via Guide Bridge: 0tph (-1tph)
• Stockport/beyond: 3tph (+1tph)
• Airport/beyond: 8tph (+3tph*)

*Although, including services from the main shed, the Airport line frequency has dropped from 10tph to 9tph in total.

In view of this, I would suggest the following three services as the least worst options for temporary culling, oending infrastructure improvements:

1. Liverpool - Crewe via Airport stopper to be split into separate Liverpool - Victoria and Piccadilly - Crewe via Airport portions. This already happens for two hours in the evening, so clearly paths to/from Victoria and the Piccadilly main shed could be made available in the standard hour too. Clearly this split would be inconvenient for those travelling between Chat Moss stations and Piccadilly or the Airport, but they already have that inconvenience in the evening peak. This is currently one of the services with a crew change at Oxford Road, bringing a consequent risk of delay.
2. Barrow/Windermere - Airport to be cut back to Preston. Before 2018 the direct Cumbria - Airport services were less frequent and were portion worked with Blackpool services from Preston. Portion working is no longer feasible and the change at Preston would unfortunately increase journey times. But the other 3tph between Preston and Piccadilly (from Blackpool and Scotland) are being strengthened. This curtailment would reduce diesel running under the wires and release 195s to strengthen other Northern services. Wigan would lose its non-stop service to Manchester via Golborne, but this was originally introduced as a short term measure to enable TPE to start using 350s before Salford - Euxton was wired. In the 2015 ITT, it was optional for Northern to continue using this route, although Arriva chose to take up the option.
3. Newcastle - Manchester Airport to be cut back to Leeds. This service is immediately followed throgh the TPE core, in both directions, by the Hull - Piccadilly via Guide Bridge service, which is being strengthened to 6-car. There are connections at Stalybridge to/from the Northern Stalybridge - Victoria stopper. Newcastle would still have 1tph direct to Victoria. The reduction from 5tph to 4tph fast services would undoubtedly improve punctuality through the transpennine core as well as the Castlefield corridor. Unfortunately the prized 4tph clockface service between Leeds and Victoria would be lost, but "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs!" An option might be to swap the Hull and Newcastle paths at Leeds, if it is considered preferable to have a Newcastle to Piccadilly via Guide Bridge service and cut the Hull service back to Leeds.

The "holes" these cuts would leave in the corridor timetable would be distributed through the hour and so greatly increase resilience to delays. The Piccadilly - Airport service would be reduced from 9tph to 7tph, but there might be scope to reintroduce the Northern hourly shuttle that was culled in 2018.

Of the above three proposals, #3 would clearly be the most controversial and probably politically unacceptable. But there are no easy, painless options to reduce congestion in the near term. Even if only the two Northern services were culled it would be better than nothing.

 

[Philip]

Could the Southport - Alderley Edge be diverted into Victoria to terminate there without causing too much disruption on the through platforms? I'm sure the Alderley Edge end of it could easily drop into a Piccadilly shed platform.

 

[158756]

Long term solution - convert the CLC, Atherton, Glossop and both Marple routes to tram, build 15/16 at Piccadilly and sort out Oxford Road, along with a flyover and the missing curve at Ardwick, close Victoria. BR had the right idea with the Windsor Link, the problem is the traffic has grown too much for Piccadilly to handle everything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Long term solution - convert the CLC, Atherton, Glossop and both Marple routes to tram, build 15/16 at Piccadilly and sort out Oxford Road, along with a flyover and the missing curve at Ardwick, close Victoria. BR had the right idea with the Windsor Link, the problem is the traffic has grown too much for Piccadilly to handle everything.

Raises a question, though: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...w-might-strines-and-chinley-be-served.197276/

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There aren't enough 802s for a start.

Surely while they are being built it would be easy to add on to the order/ order more?

 

[daodao]

For example, rerouting the TPE Leeds - Airport services via Guide Bridge and terminating them in the Piccadilly main shed instead (a perennial favourite on RailUK) would be impractical. Picc Platforms 1 - 4 are pretty much maxed out with the existing services.

My proposal would only mean 2 tph running from Leeds into Piccadilly Platforms 1 - 4, which is the same number as at present. The other 2 tph from Leeds would run via Victoria to Lime Street. The stopping services from Huddersfield would run via Victoria to points further west.

 

[Greybeard33]

Could the Southport - Alderley Edge be diverted into Victoria to terminate there without causing too much disruption on the through platforms? I'm sure the Alderley Edge end of it could easily drop into a Piccadilly shed platform.

An hourly direct service between Southport and Piccadilly has only just been restored. This was the result of a powerful campaign by the user group, supported by local MPs, after the Southport to Manchester Airport service was removed in May 2018.

I doubt if the Rail North Partnership will have the political stomach to take on that user group again.

 

[Glenn1969]

If the Marple line becomes a tram could it be mixed use like the Sunderland line with an hourly service running from Piccadilly non stop to Marple then Strines and New Mills Central or is that impractical. I would then divert the Sheffield stopper via Stockport and serve Chinley and Hope Valley stations that way if a path could be found

 

[Greybeard33]

My proposal would only mean 2 tph running from Leeds into Piccadilly Platforms 1 - 4, which is the same number as at present. The other 2 tph from Leeds would run via Victoria to Lime Street. The stopping services from Huddersfield would run via Victoria to points further west.

Your previous posts did not not explain that you would reroute the Huddersfield stopper to somewhere west of Victoria. With the service remapped from TPE to Northern?

I gather you would also cut the TPE service between Piccadilly and Leeds from the current 3tph to 2tph; however, you have not said which of the current final destinations (Hull, Redcar or Newcastle) would be dropped.

Your proposal for 6-car trains on TPE services would require TPE to procure additional carriages for its new 5-car trains. In the case of the 802s that would be a complex/costly mod; Hitachi has hitherto produced 80x units only in 5-car and 9-car sets.

Your proposal for Ordsall Chord services to run to the Rochdale line instead of the Stalybridge line would increase junction conflicts around Victoria - see the Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report for the explanation. Track and signalling changes would probably be required to mitigate this.

Your post #16 omits to mention that you have assumed electrification of Lostock - Wigan NW as well as the entire CLC line. #30 further proposes a new electrified siding east of Victoria, with associated signalling changes.

These proposals would take years to implement, during which time Piccadilly P15/16 and the Oxford Road enhancements could be constructed instead. In any case the proposals are highly unlikely to be adopted, because they would be opposed by the city regions across the North, who are influential in the Rail North Partnership and value their direct services to Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your previous posts did not not explain that you would reroute the Huddersfield stopper to somewhere west of Victoria. With the service remapped from TPE to Northern?

I'd do that anyway. It does not make sense to have the stopper with TPE - it's a poor fit just like "XC-lite" is to that franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

they would be opposed by the city regions across the North, who are influential in the Rail North Partnership and value their direct services to Manchester Airport.

Who want their cake and eat it.

Everyone involved in Northern and TPE needs to realise there is a need for swingeing cuts over the next 5 years as well as building the missing capacity (both 15/16 etc and 200m platforms). Then put those trains back but no more once it's all built.

 

[daodao]

Your previous posts did not not explain that you would reroute the Huddersfield stopper to somewhere west of Victoria. With the service remapped from TPE to Northern?

It would be joined to one of the existing Stalybridge-Victoria services, which are run by Northern.

I gather you would also cut the TPE service between Piccadilly and Leeds from the current 3tph to 2tph; however, you have not said which of the current final destinations (Hull, Redcar or Newcastle) would be dropped.

The would be 4 fast trains from Manchester to Leeds, as follows:
2tph Liverpool Lime St non-stop to Victoria via Chat Moss, then calling at Huddersfield, Leeds and York, and then alternately to Newcastle or Middlesbrough.

2tph Manchester Piccadilly calling at Guide Bridge, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Leeds, and then alternately to Hull (via Selby) or Scarborough (via York).

Your proposal for 6-car trains on TPE services would require TPE to procure additional carriages for its new 5-car trains. In the case of the 802s that would be a complex/costly mod; Hitachi has hitherto produced 80x units only in 5-car and 9-car sets.

I did not realise these were only 5 carriage trains. The main stations on the Trans-Pennine route had platforms long enough to accommodate 6-carriage trains, and the Trans-Pennine class 124 diesel multiple units that I recall from travelling between Manchester and Leeds in the 1960s and 1970s had 6 carriages. If they have only built 5 carriage trains for use on the principal TPE trains, that is unfortunate, but I accept not easily rectifiable. Few longer trains would make better use of limited rail capacity.

Your proposal for Ordsall Chord services to run to the Rochdale line instead of the Stalybridge line would increase junction conflicts around Victoria - see the Network Rail Congested Infrastructure report for the explanation. Track and signalling changes would probably be required to mitigate this.

They could cross over to the Rochdale line to the east of Victoria, where there are fewer trains. It would be much more useful running Airport trains to the Rochdale line than the Standedge route, as passengers from Huddersfield and beyond can more easily connect at Piccadilly for the Airport.

Your post #16 omits to mention that you have assumed electrification of Lostock - Wigan NW as well as the entire CLC line. #30 further proposes a new electrified siding east of Victoria, with associated signalling changes.

I had assumed that the Lostock - Wigan NW line is going to be electrified - this has been approved. Electrification of the CLC line via Warrington is desirable, but not essential for my suggestions. However, it would enable a more frequent 30 minute stopping service to be provided at all stations (compared to the hourly or 2 hourly service that some now have) as electric trains have better acceleration from stops. There should be some space east of Victoria to construct a single electrified siding for the hourly Scotch service.

These proposals would take years to implement, during which time Piccadilly P15/16 and the Oxford Road enhancements could be constructed instead. In any case the proposals are highly unlikely to be adopted, because they would be opposed by the city regions across the North, who are influential in the Rail North Partnership and value their direct services to Manchester Airport.

The proposed Piccadilly P15/16 and the Oxford Road enhancements would be far more expensive and time-consuming to construct than my suggestions, given that the Castlefield line is built on a viaduct throughout its length, and these modifications would not enhance the capacity of the double-track railway between Piccadilly and Deansgate, which is the core of the problem.

The unreliablity of the current timetable does not encourage rail travel to the airport, as rail passengers cannot depend on getting to the airport in time to check-in for their flight. What is needed is a robust service. My suggestions would preserve through trains to the airport from Liverpool, Bolton, Preston and Blackpool, provide them for Rochdale and East Lancashire and maintain a direct service to Leeds, albeit via Todmorden. Places further afield such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle, have their own major international airports; Scotland is not included in the Rail North Partnership.

 

[Greybeard33]

I did not realise these were only 5 carriage trains. The main stations on the Trans-Pennine route had platforms long enough to accommodate 6-carriage trains, and the Trans-Pennine class 124 diesel multiple units that I recall from travelling between Manchester and Leeds in the 1960s and 1970s had 6 carriages. If they have only built 5 carriage trains for use on the principal TPE trains, that is unfortunate, but I accept not easily rectifiable. Few longer trains would make better use of limited rail capacity.

From Wikipedia the 6-car 124s were about 118m long with 300 seats, including 60 first. The 5-car TPE Class 802s, for use on the Newcastle and Edinburgh via Newcastle services, have 26m carriages and so are in fact longer, at 130m, with 342 seats including 24 first. The 5-car Mk5A loco-hauled sets, for Redcar and Scarborough services, have 22.4m carriages and are only 112m plus loco, but nevertheless have 287 seats including 30 first. The Hull services are to be operated by 6-car double 185 formations, 142m long with 364 seats including 30 first.

So overall more capacity than was provided by Class 124s, although with less first class accommodation and no buffet car!

The proposed Piccadilly P15/16 and the Oxford Road enhancements would be far more expensive and time-consuming to construct than my suggestions, given that the Castlefield line is built on a viaduct throughout its length, and these modifications would not enhance the capacity of the double-track railway between Piccadilly and Deansgate, which is the core of the problem.

The unreliablity of the current timetable does not encourage rail travel to the airport, as rail passengers cannot depend on getting to the airport in time to check-in for their flight. What is needed is a robust service. My suggestions would preserve through trains to the airport from Liverpool, Bolton, Preston and Blackpool, provide them for Rochdale and East Lancashire and maintain a direct service to Leeds, albeit via Todmorden. Places further afield such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle, have their own major international airports; Scotland is not included in the Rail North Partnership.

The Piccadilly/Oxford Road enhancement project was fully designed and "shovel ready" at the time the SoS declined to sign off the TWAO. The core of the Castlefield problem is the lack of platform capacity at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, not the stretches of double track railway between the stations along the corridor. My suggestions in post #35 could address the punctuality performance more quickly than yours in the interim.

I still believe that political opposition to your proposals from Leeds, York, Newcastle and Tees Valley would prove insurmountable.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Not in direct response to any recent post on this particular thread, I would nevertheless be interested if anyone could throw any light on the comment that is occasionally made about ‘going round the other way’. This appears to involve reinstatement of the relatively short curve from near Ardwick Junction round to the former Ancoats Junction and the rest of what is commonly referred to as the Phillips Park Line round to Miles Platting and thence Victoria. Supposedly this would enable trains from Liverpool via the Chat Moss line and from Scotland and the North West via Preston and Bolton to run via Victoria and terminate in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly for connections to Manchester Airport and elsewhere without going via Castlefield.

I have never been aware of whether regular passenger trains have ever run via this route. So far as I am aware it was basically a Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway route that had little ‘place’ in London Road Station (as it was), split between the Great Central and L&NWR. I had always assumed that it was mainly used for freight and parcels transfer moves rather than as a through route.

In mid-BR days, after the 1,500V Woodhead electrification and 25,000V WCML electrification schemes had been ‘paralleled’ in the throat of what became Piccadilly, I understand that there was only a single line connection between the Ancoats line and the WCML tracks that was effectively a ‘flat crossing’ of the 1,500V lines. Given that it wasn’t electrified at either voltage I am unaware of the reason for this.

I am also unaware of when the Ancoats Curve finally closed.

Can any Mancunian experts throw some illumination on this subject?

(With apologies to anyone who thinks that this ought to be in the Railway History and Nostalgia section but I am trying to get some context in relation to current issues.)

 

[krus_aragon]

Isn't the premise that action is needed now rather than once some additional infrastructure work (eg installing sidings and changing signals) or driver training (eg TFW staff learning Newton Heath) can be completed.

Driver training wouldn't be as much of an expense/delay as infrastructure changes, though.

 

[JonathanH]

Driver training wouldn't be as much of an expense/delay as infrastructure changes, though.

It still takes time to organise. TfW have other driver training needs to resource before they start training drivers to go to Victoria and Newton Heath.

 

[krus_aragon]

It still takes time to organise. TfW have other driver training needs to resource before they start training drivers to go to Victoria and Newton Heath.

Yes, but less time than planning and building a new (electrified?) siding and changing signal layouts, I'd hope.

I'd like to think that (if such a decision were made) redirecting TfW services to Victoria and Newton Heath could be done for the December 2020 timetable change, whereas I wouldn't expect to see a new siding built and in use in the same timescale.

I suspect that TfW would prefer to stay in Piccadilly and operate through to the Airport, though.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, but less time than planning and building a new (electrified?) siding and changing signal layouts, I'd hope.

I'd like to think that (if such a decision were made) redirecting TfW services to Victoria and Newton Heath could be done for the December 2020 timetable change, whereas I wouldn't expect to see a new siding built and in use in the same timescale.

I suspect that TfW would prefer to stay in Piccadilly and operate through to the Airport, though.

Yes, but that comes down to whether we are looking at fixes for the Castlefield corridor that can be implemented in the next few weeks (truncation / withdrawal of services), over the medium term (redirection) or long term.

 

[Greybeard33]

This appears to involve reinstatement of the relatively short curve from near Ardwick Junction round to the former Ancoats Junction and the rest of what is commonly referred to as the Phillips Park Line round to Miles Platting and thence Victoria. Supposedly this would enable trains from Liverpool via the Chat Moss line and from Scotland and the North West via Preston and Bolton to run via Victoria and terminate in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly for connections to Manchester Airport and elsewhere without going via Castlefield.

The low numbered platforms at Piccadilly do not have spare capacity for additional services, so this idea would seem to be a non-starter.

If the curve still existed, I imagine it would be useful for ECS moves.

 

[randyrippley]

Not in direct response to any recent post on this particular thread, I would nevertheless be interested if anyone could throw any light on the comment that is occasionally made about ‘going round the other way’. This appears to involve reinstatement of the relatively short curve from near Ardwick Junction round to the former Ancoats Junction and the rest of what is commonly referred to as the Phillips Park Line round to Miles Platting and thence Victoria. Supposedly this would enable trains from Liverpool via the Chat Moss line and from Scotland and the North West via Preston and Bolton to run via Victoria and terminate in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly for connections to Manchester Airport and elsewhere without going via Castlefield.

I have never been aware of whether regular passenger trains have ever run via this route. So far as I am aware it was basically a Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway route that had little ‘place’ in London Road Station (as it was), split between the Great Central and L&NWR. I had always assumed that it was mainly used for freight and parcels transfer moves rather than as a through route.

In mid-BR days, after the 1,500V Woodhead electrification and 25,000V WCML electrification schemes had been ‘paralleled’ in the throat of what became Piccadilly, I understand that there was only a single line connection between the Ancoats line and the WCML tracks that was effectively a ‘flat crossing’ of the 1,500V lines. Given that it wasn’t electrified at either voltage I am unaware of the reason for this.

I am also unaware of when the Ancoats Curve finally closed.

Can any Mancunian experts throw some illumination on this subject?

(With apologies to anyone who thinks that this ought to be in the Railway History and Nostalgia section but I am trying to get some context in relation to current issues.)

This clearing house map should clarify
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Manchester_RJD_47.JPG

looks like it gave the L&Y access to London Rd and Ducie St freight terminals, and also maybe the Trafford Park and Salford Quays complexes.
I'd guess the link went at the same time as London Rd was rebuilt as Piccadilly, and Ducie St bulldozed

There was a declared intention to reinstate it in time for the 2002 Commonwealth Games along with an early version of the Ordsall curve giving the city a circular railway, but the realisation was that there wasn't time to build it and get the trains for it

 

[Senex]

This clearing house map should clarify
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Manchester_RJD_47.JPG

looks like it gave the L&Y access to London Rd and Ducie St freight terminals, and also maybe the Trafford Park and Salford Quays complexes.
I'd guess the link went at the same time as London Rd was rebuilt as Piccadilly, and Ducie St bulldozed

There was a declared intention to reinstate it in time for the 2002 Commonwealth Games along with an early version of the Ordsall curve giving the city a circular railway, but the realisation was that there wasn't time to build it and get the trains for it

My first clear memories of that line are from the late 1950s, when the signalling in the area was still semaphores. The L&Y junction had already been singled from just beyond its junction signal, and the single line ran straight across both the former GC lines to join the up LNW slow line. Access to the east-side yards was possible, but only by then re-crossing the GC lines. It would be interesting to see a signalling diagram from the 1910/1920 period, after the separate eastern lines had been built but still in company days, to see if even before the creation of the LMS the L&Y lines always just crossed over the GC lines.
Incidentally, the line did see regular passenger use for a short period in the 1850s, but I think no regular use ever after. I travelled over it when it was being used for diversions whilst works were being done at Slade Lane for the new bridge and general track reorganisation there (diverted from Stockport vis Heaton Norris Jn, Denton Jn, Droylsden Jn, Park Station Jn, and Ardwick Jn to Manchester LR).

 

[Dr Day]

I suspect that TfW would prefer to stay in Piccadilly and operate through to the Airport, though.

Which is another element of the problem- no TOC wanting to lose revenue by either relinquishing an ORCATS share or forcing customers to a (perceived or otherwise) less desirable destination within Manchester.

IIRC the early planning for Manchester Hub by Network Rail did indeed have things like trains from North Wales running into Victoria, and fewer trains to the airport than today, however commercial issues also got in the way of what may have been an operationally sensible solution, even without key elements of infrastructure. The ORR over-ruled Network Rail’s attempt to block ATWs extension to the airport but it was noted it was ‘abstractive’.

So Williams may also come up with part of the solution- a regional rail authority taking revenue risk enabling a more strategic overview to be taken of the ‘right thing to do’ .

Of course there will still be politics, including Inter-regional politics such as Welsh Government wanting their citizens to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course there will still be politics, including Inter-regional politics such as Welsh Government wanting their citizens to have direct trains to Manchester Airport.

Perhaps TfW could be offered the ability to do this from the other direction i.e. via Crewe and the Styal line?

 

[Philip]

Another idea; cut the EMT from Norwich-Liverpool so that it terminates at and starts from Manchester Piccadilly. The originally planned Bradford-Liverpool via Victoria could then (sort of) take it's place as an extension of the Calder Valley service that currently terminates at Man Vic.

I realise that this halves the number of express trains on the CLC route, so perhaps the Oxford Road stopping trains could be reorganised so as to make one of them a replacement for the EMT (and so more or less the EMT stopping pattern, with perhaps alternating additional calls at either Urmston or Irlam) and the other an all stops service.

Liverpool to Stockport, Sheffield and Nottingham may have reasonable markets, but I don't deem any of the above connections as 'essential' to keep as direct, improving the shambles across Manchester is a much bigger priority at least.

 

[MetroCar4058]

I'm not too sure about how this would work, but I'd like to throw it out there! Why not look into moving all Sheffield/Hope Valley/New Mills Central services to Victoria via Ashburys. I know it would extend journey times and would be strongly disliked but it would free up a lot of capacity. This would remove the TPE service cutting across the throat and remove the EMR service from Castlefield.

• Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport via Victoria and Ordsall Chord OR Terminates here, change for the other TPE services.
• Norwich - Liverpool via Victoria and diverted via Newton le Willows. Stockport picked up by a Northern service or Avanti.
• Hope Valley et al terminating in P1/2 at Victoria
• Additionally, Wilmslow - Liverpool all stops via NLW diverted to terminate at Victoria (potentially replaced by another CLC Northern service).

This really frees up capacity at Piccadilly, centralises TPE ops at Victoria and opens up the path for another Northern service along the CLC, or ideally better timed services with more carriages. EMR avoiding Castlefield reduces the likelihood of residual delays on that service. Although I'm not sure if Hope Valley/New Mills Central services would overload P1/2 at Vic.

 

[Senex]

I'm not too sure about how this would work, but I'd like to throw it out there! Why not look into moving all Sheffield/Hope Valley/New Mills Central services to Victoria via Ashburys. I know it would extend journey times and would be strongly disliked but it would free up a lot of capacity. This would remove the TPE service cutting across the throat and remove the EMR service from Castlefield.

• Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport via Victoria and Ordsall Chord OR Terminates here, change for the other TPE services.
• Norwich - Liverpool via Victoria and diverted via Newton le Willows. Stockport picked up by a Northern service or Avanti.
• Hope Valley et al terminating in P1/2 at Victoria
• Additionally, Wilmslow - Liverpool all stops via NLW diverted to terminate at Victoria (potentially replaced by another CLC Northern service).

This really frees up capacity at Piccadilly, centralises TPE ops at Victoria and opens up the path for another Northern service along the CLC, or ideally better timed services with more carriages. EMR avoiding Castlefield reduces the likelihood of residual delays on that service. Although I'm not sure if Hope Valley/New Mills Central services would overload P1/2 at Vic.

How much deceleration from Stockport to Manchester and then on to Liverpool are you willing to accept, on a journey that is already very slow by modern standards (or even historic ones!)? The only way you could get anything approaching a fast time would involve pretty massive expenditure. Heaton Norris Jn would need re-designing for higher speeds and the line on to Denton Jn would need upgrading and in part re-doubling, including a motorway bridge. But it's after that that it gets really difficult, as the only way of getting a fast route would be to make the divergence at Denton the main line and then from just beyond restore the direct line to Droylsden Jn, some of the alignment of which has already been built over. Then you need a decent junction at Denton. After that, you're OK if the Trans-Pennine work is done without further de-scoping, as you get the higher speed already provided on the Stalybridge branch, the 60 suggested for the full re-alignment at Miles Platting, and the slightly higher speed on the bank down into Victoria. It would cost a very great deal of money, and would still be perhaps double the running-time of a clear road from Stockport to Picadilly.
There's absolutely no doubt that the best way of providing an inter-city service serving Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool would be to deal with the Castlefield Corridor issue properly (and I'll go against the grain of the debate here and say, if necessary by cutting down on the number of stopping services through the corridor in favour of the long-distance services), but even then, you'd still have junction problems between Edgeley and Ardwick.