Old Trafford freight relocation

[Sonik]

The core expectation is that all the Trafford Park rail traffic will basically up sticks and move to either brand new Parkside or Port Salford, via the flat junction at Winwick and two more flat junctions at Earlestown. This will travel along a key part of the Chat Moss line between Liverpool and Manchester.

Which will improve the justification for both NPR and HS2. No doubt Burnam, Rotheram & co have sat down with experts, and done the maths on this.

Note also, Reeves' proposed changes to the green book.

Here's the proposed layout for Parkside, which notably allows traffic to access the freight terminal in all directions:

https://www.tritaxbigbox.co.uk/media/ggbnrerb/ilpn-parkside-option-c4-schematic-270125.pdf

 

[The Planner]

So, just to make sure I’ve understood this right:
The core expectation is that all the Trafford Park rail traffic will basically up sticks and move to either brand new Parkside or Port Salford, via the flat junction at Winwick and two more flat junctions at Earlestown. This will travel along a key part of the Chat Moss line between Liverpool and Manchester. Presumably it is also assumed that this will simultaneously be superseded as the main passenger route by the new Northern Powerhouse/ TransPennine/ High Speed line via Warrington.
This seems like a huge upheaval to facilitate a rather nebulous scheme for a new Trafford project.
Presumably (again) the released freight paths via Castlefield will only work via the Styal line? I suppose that they might support a second hourly Ordsall Chord path.

Winsford Weaver will be the difficult bit. You can hide them at Winwick amd Earlestown. You are forgetting south of Wilmslow too in terms of released paths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==

Here's the proposed layout for Parkside, which notably allows traffic to access the freight terminal in all directions:

https://www.tritaxbigbox.co.uk/media/ggbnrerb/ilpn-parkside-option-c4-schematic-270125.pdf

There was no way NR would have accepted anything without access at either end.

 

[takno]

Which will improve the justification for both NPR and HS2. No doubt Burnam, Rotheram & co have sat down with experts, and done the maths on this.

Note also, Reeves' proposed changes to the green book.

Here's the proposed layout for Parkside, which notably allows traffic to access the freight terminal in all directions:

https://www.tritaxbigbox.co.uk/media/ggbnrerb/ilpn-parkside-option-c4-schematic-270125.pdf

Pity that doesn't have a connection onto the southbound WCML as well.

 

[D Mylchreest]

Pity that doesn't have a connection onto the southbound WCML as well.

Isn't there a connection via the Earlestown triangle?

 

[takno]

Isn't there a connection via the Earlestown triangle?

It does, but I meant without crossing the down line on the level.

 

[TheGrew]

Isn't there a connection via the Earlestown triangle?

Yes, the trouble with a closer southbound WCML connection is the substantial height difference. The WCML bypass runs rather deep in a cutting. I took the below photo from the Newton Park Drive Overbridge which gives and idea.
I am slightly dissapointed a connection direct from the intermodal terminal to the curve coming off Parkside Junction hasn't been put in though it is just a shunt.
I live in NLW so have just recieved the physical newsletter and might attend one of the community sessions.

 

[Sonik]

How would closing Trafford Park FLT make any difference whatsoever to paths through Warrington Central??

It doesn't say Central, just Warington

Winsford Weaver will be the difficult bit.

Reading between the lines here (pun intended) but perhaps FL are proposing to also relocate services from Garston FLT to the new Parkside FLT (with much better access to M6) using their existing paths Winsford-Weaver.

Thus releasing paths to Lime Street via Warington Bank Quay low level.

Which was, IIRC, the proposal to deliver NPR Liverpool-Manchester via High Leigh.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Reading between the lines here (pun intended) but perhaps FL are proposing to also relocate services from Garston FLT to the new Parkside FLT, using their existing paths Winsford-Weaver.
Thus releasing paths to Lime Street via Warrington Bank Quay low level. Which was, IRC, the proposal to deliver NPR via High Leigh.

There are more freight services from Crewe towards Liverpool than just the Garston traffic.
There is negligible traffic on the WBQ LL route today, and involves an awkward reversal at Latchford.
It would have to be extensively rebuilt for any NPR use.

 

[TheGrew]

I wonder if there is much of a case for properly quad-tracking Crewe->Weaver Junction to try and alleviate some of the Bottleneck.

 

[The Planner]

I wonder if there is much of a case for properly quad-tracking Crewe->Weaver Junction to try and alleviate some of the Bottleneck.

Not for freight on its own, no. Its due to get re-signaled soon anyway, so that should get the headway down a bit.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I wonder if there is much of a case for properly quad-tracking Crewe->Weaver Junction to try and alleviate some of the Bottleneck.

Quadrupling Dutton Viaduct between Acton Bridge and Weaver Junction would be the challenge - and enormous expense.

 

[Meerkat]

Fact: https://footballgroundguide.com/new...government-funding-for-sporting-elements.html

No government funding for sporting elements but the news has been saying public money will relocate the freight.

 

[childwallblues]

Winsford Weaver will be the difficult bit. You can hide them at Winwick amd Earlestown. You are forgetting south of Wilmslow too in terms of released paths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2025 ==


There was no way NR would have accepted anything without access at either end.

Winsford to Weaver should not be a problem as the WCML is four tracked between Acton Bridge and Hartford LNW Junction.

 

[The Planner]

Winsford to Weaver should not be a problem as the WCML is four tracked between Acton Bridge and Hartford LNW Junction.

Its a problem now!

 

[richard_S]

There is another option.

railfuture On The Castlefield Problem

This report on the railfuture web site is entitled The Castlefield Problem – A Great Opportunity For Freight. This is the introduction to the report. Railfuture believes that railways should …

anonw.com

hope the link works.

 

[slipdigby]

Which will improve the justification for both NPR and HS2. No doubt Burnam, Rotheram & co have sat down with experts, and done the maths on this.

You'd like to think so, but you'd also be sadly mistaken. Politics comes first with these sorts of things.

Further (regurgitated PR) details about the MUFC Old Trafford plans here:

Everything we know about Manchester United's new Old Trafford stadium

The club has unveiled the new details about the project

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Despite the fancy graphics released today, I can't work out where the footprint of the new stadium is, relative to what's there now.
It doesn't appear to be based on the current stadium.
If it requires railway land, the Trafford Park terminal would have to be moved before they can start construction.
That means approval for the new terminal sites, presumably at Port Salford and Parkside, will be needed first.
They won't be built in a hurry, so the start of stadium construction will be years away.
Unless there is a cunning plan...

 

[The Planner]

Despite the fancy graphics released today, I can't work out where the footprint of the new stadium is, relative to what's there now.
It doesn't appear to be based on the current stadium.
If it requires railway land, the Trafford Park terminal would have to be moved before they can start construction.
That means approval for the new terminal sites, presumably at Port Salford and Parkside, will be needed first.
They won't be built in a hurry, so the start of stadium construction will be years away.
Unless there is a cunning plan...

They are claiming a 5 year build, but as you note with all the other interdependencies, consents and processes, its a decade away at best.

 

[JamesT]

Despite the fancy graphics released today, I can't work out where the footprint of the new stadium is, relative to what's there now.
It doesn't appear to be based on the current stadium.
If it requires railway land, the Trafford Park terminal would have to be moved before they can start construction.
That means approval for the new terminal sites, presumably at Port Salford and Parkside, will be needed first.
They won't be built in a hurry, so the start of stadium construction will be years away.
Unless there is a cunning plan...

On the overview ‘shot’, I’d look at where it is compared to the canal. To me, the new stadium is essentially on top of the current freight terminal.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Despite the fancy graphics released today, I can't work out where the footprint of the new stadium is, relative to what's there now.
It doesn't appear to be based on the current stadium.
If it requires railway land, the Trafford Park terminal would have to be moved before they can start construction.
That means approval for the new terminal sites, presumably at Port Salford and Parkside, will be needed first.
They won't be built in a hurry, so the start of stadium construction will be years away.
Unless there is a cunning plan...

The plans for Parkside East are well advanced by all accounts, the Liverpool City Region has been working on them for years with different developers but the site was sold in 2023 to Tritax Big Box who were behind a similar site at Hinckley which Maritime Transport Ltd now a subsidiary of Medlog and thus MSC operate.
https://www.tritaxbigbox.co.uk/our-spaces/intermodal-logistics-park-north/

 

[Dr Hoo]

The recent refusal of DfT Secretary of State for consent for the Hinckley scheme doesn’t bode well for Parkside.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The recent refusal of DfT Secretary of State for consent for the Hinckley scheme doesn’t bode well for Parkside.

On the contrary the Parkside scheme does not have any of the problems that the resulted in the Hinckley scheme being refused planning permission.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpq3l759vo

Furthermore, the Government has already indicated it's mindful to approve the Old Trafford redevelopment scheme, key to which is relocation of the two rail terminals on the site.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Putting in the Parkside and Port Salford connections will involve resignalling along the Chat Moss line, with new branch line and junction construction.
I doubt any of that is anything like shovel-ready, even if the government approves the planning aspects.
Funding could be a nightmare, with all the independent (mostly private) parties involved.

 

[Dr Hoo]

So, to be quite clear, the Parkside plans now have all necessary consents and funding and space for warehousing, local road improvements and so on sufficient to accommodate all of the traffic to and from the two terminals at Trafford Park?

Can someone in the know please explicitly confirm this?

By way of reference, I note that there were around 14 return workings at Trafford Park yesterday. This was by no means especially busy with a few cancellations and vacant ‘run as required’ paths.

And how does this fit with the 75% freight growth target, which will have to come mainly from intermodal? I had always seen ‘new’ terminals like Parkside (and Hinckley) as being about growth rather than deckchair re-arrangement of current traffic.

 

[The Planner]

Putting in the Parkside and Port Salford connections will involve resignalling along the Chat Moss line, with new branch line and junction construction.
I doubt any of that is anything like shovel-ready, even if the government approves the planning aspects.
Funding could be a nightmare, with all the independent (mostly private) parties involved.

It doesn't. Chat Moss was re-signalled around 15 years ago, it will be just adding the junctions in.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Putting in the Parkside and Port Salford connections will involve resignalling along the Chat Moss line, with new branch line and junction construction.
I doubt any of that is anything like shovel-ready, even if the government approves the planning aspects.
Funding could be a nightmare, with all the independent (mostly private) parties involved.

If MSC through it's subsidiaries Medlog & Maritime Transport Ltd purchased Freightliner Intermodal then cost is unlikely to be a problem, another subsidiary Terminal Investments Ltd has with Blackrock just agreed to pay USD22 billon for Hutchinson Ports which includes the Port of Felixstowe. Parkside would then have one owner/operator helped in part by the fact that I believe United will have to fund part of the relocation costs. Parkside with it's warehousing facilities is probably more suitable for a Maritime Transport Ltd type operation, rather than a simple Freightliner type railhead.

 

[HSTEd]

And how does this fit with the 75% freight growth target, which will have to come mainly from intermodal? I had always seen ‘new’ terminals like Parkside (and Hinckley) as being about growth rather than deckchair re-arrangement of current traffic.

Well presumably the depot could just be built to meet the required target and allow the old depot to be closed.

If the Trafford Park freight complex didn't already exist, I don't think anyone would propose building it there.
The site is highly constrained and rail access is a mess.
Even road access from the rail terminal is not incredible because its on the wrong side of the industrial estate for the motorway.

 

[Grumpy]

As someone mere feet from the Chat Moss line from NLW I suspect that southern access would be via Earlestown and Winwick junction. Northern access would be far more tricky due to the proximity of the M6. The old parkside colliery only had direct southbound access (excluding a reverse at Huyton or Edge Hill) and northbound would require access before the golbourne turn out of the triangle there resulting in a lot of earthworks and land purchase. The M6 is too close to the old parkside exit.

When Royal Mail was planning a rail hub in the North West (subsequently built at Warrington), Parkside was one of the options considered. Drawings showed access was to have been directly from the Chat Moss route, in turn giving easy rail access to the WCML (North and South), and good road access to the M6/M62.
This option was not pursued due to doubts over the site owners ability to proceed in the required timescale-the site was a political hot potato then, being picketed by Miners' wives.
This is a great distribution location given the good access-probably nothing remotely as good between Crewe and Preston

 

[Meerkat]

When Royal Mail was planning a rail hub in the North West (subsequently built at Warrington), Parkside was one of the options considered. Drawings showed access was to have been directly from the Chat Moss route, in turn giving easy rail access to the WCML (North and South), and good road access to the M6/M62.
This option was not pursued due to doubts over the site owners ability to proceed in the required timescale-the site was a political hot potato then, being picketed by Miners' wives.
This is a great distribution location given the good access-probably nothing remotely as good between Crewe and Preston

If the access is only to the Chat Moss then trains to the south have to cross the down WCML to get to the up. And presumably both directions will take a fair bit of capacity on the Earlestown triangle.

 

[The Planner]

If the access is only to the Chat Moss then trains to the south have to cross the down WCML to get to the up. And presumably both directions will take a fair bit of capacity on the Earlestown triangle.

Earlestown and Winwick aren't the problem, Winsford Weaver is.