Castlefield corridor potential solutions?

[Halifaxlad]

By the time you added additional turn back facilities and electrified the route would it really be a short term solution?

It would certainly be a lot quicker than building platforms 15/16!

 

[Ianno87]

It would certainly be a lot quicker than building platforms 15/16!

Not if you require land, TWAO powers, etc. Plus you need to prove such an intervention actually results in being able to run more trains.

 

[Jozhua]

I have a solution:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301122

 

[Halifaxlad]

I have a solution:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301122

and until then Rochdale should be electrified, straightened out with new platforms and sidings created!



According to Google that square is 8,614.19 m², the equivalent of 2.1 acres! Plenty of siding/platform space I'm sure. Don't forget NR reopened the subway not so long ago so if you were to reinstate the old platforms it wouldn't be that hard, just a new lift would be required and obviously the platform.

Here's a nice view from the reopened subway end of the station.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4597954

 

[Killingworth]

I have a solution:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301122

Someone else tried that a year ago. It got nowhere; https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232155

 

[Jozhua]

Someone else tried that a year ago. It got nowhere; https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/232155

Very aware of that, no harm in trying though.

My logic was if I could share it to the forum early on and have a big push for it, it may happen. Unfortunately, there is bigger news out there at the moment, and I can't exactly hand out flyers to non-existent commuters. My hope is if this all clears up by perhaps August time, I can have a go then.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Very aware of that, no harm in trying though.

My logic was if I could share it to the forum early on and have a big push for it, it may happen. Unfortunately, there is bigger news out there at the moment, and I can't exactly hand out flyers to non-existent commuters. My hope is if this all clears up by perhaps August time, I can have a go then.

What you really want to do is to email, all rail user groups that would be affected and get them to share it!

Possibly the magazines as well.

Although it may be more effective calling for electrification to be extended to Rochdale considering how this plan might have changed since when it was first drawn up.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Has anyone suggested reinstating the line between Timperley in the East and Cadishead?

That way you could send some services via Stockport!

If you wanted to you could also connect it to Newton-le-willows if the line through Culcheth and construct a new short chord.

From Google maps both lines are intact!

 

[furnessvale]

Has anyone suggested reinstating the line between Timperley in the East and Cadishead?

That way you could send some services via Stockport!

If you wanted to you could also connect it to Newton-le-willows if the line through Culcheth and construct a new short chord.

From Google maps both lines are intact!

Railfuture has a whole suite of options for freight developed, including the above, to relieve pressure on the corridor.

 

[The Planner]

Railfuture has a whole suite of options for freight developed, including the above, to relieve pressure on the corridor.

Define "developed"

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well electrifying the CLC is a laudable goal in itself- reduces CO2, improves environment and the better acceleration would help this bottleneck too as the OP suggested in the bullet points

 

[Halifaxlad]

Railfuture has a whole suite of options for freight developed, including the above, to relieve pressure on the corridor.

Thanks, but what do folk think about reinstating this line and sending some passenger services via Stockport ?

 

[The Planner]

Thanks, but what do folk think about reinstating this line and sending some passenger services via Stockport ?

It would be slower for a start so I doubt anyone would use it to/from Manchester, nice chunk of single line too.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It would be slower for a start so I doubt anyone would use it to/from Manchester, nice chunk of single line too.

And having to cross the WCML on the flat at Edgeley 'southbound'.

Nightmare idea.

 

[Halifaxlad]

And having to cross the WCML on the flat at Edgeley 'southbound'.

Fair point, my initial thoughts were to combine this with a new line that would connect up with the existing Manchester Airport, although I later saw this as a potential 'quick win' scheme and didn't quite consider that junction too much.

From the looks of it, if 380 meters is long enough then judging by the width you may be able to get a flyover in if the WCML lines are slewed towards the West.

 

[daodao]

Has anyone suggested reinstating the line between Timperley in the East and Cadishead? That way you could send some services via Stockport! If you wanted to you could also connect it to Newton-le-willows if the line through Culcheth and construct a new short chord. From Google maps both lines are intact!

While the trackbed from Glazebrook to Skelton Junction is still extant, the line is derelict and what remains of the track hasn't been used for many years. The line is of minimal potential value for passenger services, and is of limited potential use for goods services. Normally, the main CLC line westwards via Glazebrook is full with passenger services, and has no connectivity other than to Liverpool, so a line would need to be reconstructed from Glazebrook via Culcheth (the old GC branch to Wigan) to join the Chat Moss route east of Newton-le-Willows.

It is difficult to route trains from the Trafford Park FLT other than via the Castlefield corridor, which is the main source of the goods trains via this route. However, I was surprised to note from RTT that several daily Liverpool to Drax biomass trains run via Chat Moss, Manchester Oxford Road, Guide Bridge and Standedge! This adds to traffic via the Castlefield corridor and cuts right across the Piccadilly station throat. Why can't these trains travel via Victoria, or is the climb from Victoria to Miles Platting too onerous? I had thought they were routed via Northwich, Skelton Junction and Denton.

 

[jfollows]

However, I was surprised to note from RTT that several daily Liverpool to Drax biomass trains run via Chat Moss, Manchester Oxford Road, Guide Bridge and Standedge! This adds to traffic via the Castlefield corridor and cuts right across the Piccadilly station throat. Why can't these trains travel via Victoria, or is the climb from Victoria to Miles Platting too onerous? I had thought they were routed via Northwich, Skelton Junction and Denton.

I believe from other posts that this is only a temporary measure because of the current relative lack of passenger trains on this easier route.

See 20 Apr 2020 at 22:03

 

[The Planner]

It is difficult to route trains from the Trafford Park FLT other than via the Castlefield corridor, which is the main source of the goods trains via this route. However, I was surprised to note from RTT that several daily Liverpool to Drax biomass trains run via Chat Moss, Manchester Oxford Road, Guide Bridge and Standedge! This adds to traffic via the Castlefield corridor and cuts right across the Piccadilly station throat. Why can't these trains travel via Victoria, or is the climb from Victoria to Miles Platting too onerous? I had thought they were routed via Northwich, Skelton Junction and Denton.

You are correct that Miles Platting is a bit steep, though tests have been taking place to see how heavier loads cope from starting from a stand etc..

 

[vidal]

With regards to the Freightliner Terminal at Trafford Park is there any possibility of using the old exit onto the Trafford Park rail system and heading out that way with a crossing of the ship canal near Eccles? Or has metrolink taken all the spare land in its expansion to the Trafford Centre?

James

 

[Halifaxlad]

When I did refer the lines being 'intact' I do mean not built upon!

 

[furnessvale]

Define "developed"

Obviously NOT fully designed and costed. Even NR seem incapable of doing that without spending £millions. However, enough thought has gone into the matter to say that any given route is technically feasible.

Decisions on whether the cost of any given scheme are worth the improvements to the corridor are worthwhile are a matter for government. We may even see the preferred option of the metromayor, simple removal of freight traffic.

 

[Ianno87]

With regards to the Freightliner Terminal at Trafford Park is there any possibility of using the old exit onto the Trafford Park rail system and heading out that way with a crossing of the ship canal near Eccles? Or has metrolink taken all the spare land in its expansion to the Trafford Centre?

James

Those lines are all at-grade crossings with the road network.

 

[cle]

For the immediate - a stop on any trains terminating at Piccadilly 13/14, or in the through platforms at Oxford Road (very rare, I know) - and services should be re-arranged where possible to favour longer services and those with leaf doors.

2-car end door services need to go, the dwells are capacity killers and the length is a waste of a path. To that end, electric services should have priority overall. Sadly, I think that should preclude Lakes services until Windermere is revisited on wires.

The biggest issue there is the CLC route, fully diesel and the only way into Manchester. Wires cannot come soon enough, nor can a transfer station at Cornbrook to distribute passengers across Manchester more evenly (with integrated/non-punitive Met onwards ticketing).

As for the future - so much to do.

 

[vidal]

Those lines are all at-grade crossings with the road network.

With the very few services involved would it make much of a difference?

James

 

[Ianno87]

With the very few services involved would it make much of a difference?

James

Yes, the original crossings were designed for the odd Gronk pulling a handful of wagons at walking pace, with a member of staff walking in front.

Besides I think part of the route is severed by Metrolink now anyway, at Parkway Circle

 

[Bletchleyite]

The biggest issue there is the CLC route, fully diesel and the only way into Manchester. Wires cannot come soon enough, nor can a transfer station at Cornbrook to distribute passengers across Manchester more evenly (with integrated/non-punitive Met onwards ticketing).

I can barely see a line in the North West more suitable to wires, and high acceleration EMUs, than that. That said, near enough all of the benefits (barring the environmental one) would be gained by operating all Northern services on the route using Class 195s for the superb acceleration they have. A use for the 2-car sets perhaps? Gangways don't really matter on commuter services.

 

[HSTEd]

I can barely see a line in the North West more suitable to wires, and high acceleration EMUs, than that. That said, near enough all of the benefits (barring the environmental one) would be gained by operating all Northern services on the route using Class 195s for the superb acceleration they have. A use for the 2-car sets perhaps? Gangways don't really matter on commuter services.

195s might have good acceleration for diesel units, but we are talking about 395 or 700 levels of acceleration being acheivable.

On many of the lines, the semi-fast trains would become obsolete because the stoppers would be almost as fast.

That potentially significantly simplifies the timetable and reduces operational difficulties.
Suddenly two trains per hour on a line gives two trains per hour to most or all of the stations, whilst maintaining journey times generally comaprable to today's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My inclination for a service pattern would be 4tph - 2 of them all stations to Warrington then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate... and 2 of them Liverpool SP, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington C then all stations[1] to Manchester Picc (and beyond). I don't know if you could fit the EMT in between those though?

[1] Glazebrook, hmm. I think I'd still give it 2tph because that's then Merseyrail style simplicity which makes the timetable easy to use. It's sort of the line's Capenhurst - in the middle of nowhere when every other station is urban or suburban.

 

[Ianno87]

My inclination for a service pattern would be 4tph - 2 of them all stations to Warrington then Birchwood, Urmston, Deansgate... and 2 of them Liverpool SP, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington C then all stations[1] to Manchester Picc (and beyond). I don't know if you could fit the EMT in between those though?

[1] Glazebrook, hmm. I think I'd still give it 2tph because that's then Merseyrail style simplicity which makes the timetable easy to use. It's sort of the line's Capenhurst - in the middle of nowhere when every other station is urban or suburban.

The only way you'd get that to work would be to sequence out of Lime Street the EMT first then the semi-fast to Warrington then the stopper to Warrington one behind the other (i.e. 3 trains within about 10 minutes of each other).

The EMR has the problem of also calling at South Parkway and Widnes, so you need an extended headway to allow for the dwell times between two consecutive trains, so not very efficient use of capacity coming out of Liverpool.

Then at Manchester you'd have 3 trains one behind the other over about 7-8 minutes which would be quite demanding on Castlefield Jn capacity.


Personally I'd have the EMR as is but then rather than another fast I'd have 3 semi-fast / skip stop type services. Logic being that it keeps relatively fast services to places like Flixton and give them 3tph without stopping everywhere, doesn't overserve stations like Glazebrook and Humphrey Park and gives the bigger stations like Widnes and Birchwood an extra faster train each hour by speading stops from one of the current "stoppers" into the current Airport semi-fast

 

[Glenn1969]

How would you serve the 3 stations at the Manchester end that currently have a limited service- Trafford Park, Humphrey Park and Chassen Road? Leave them with 1tp2h or enhance to hourly or better?