Ordsall Chord

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester-Salford Quays is also very slow by tram.

It is not meant to be a fast line only to Media City UK, so please look at the total number of stops there are after Cornbrook that serve all these business complexes en route through the Salford Quays area to Media City UK.

Think of it more as a business commuter transportation route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(PS: I know that Paul Sidorczuk likes to pick up on spellings - am disappointed he doesn't appear to have spotted the idea of a railway "through the bowels club" - that would certainly take guts )

Nym and I now have a gentlemans' agreement that I look at his spellings with a "Nelsons blind eye"....but I do take heed of the humour inherent in the quote above...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All Metrolink runs via Panoma you may want to re-build this with 4 platforms instead of 2, demolishing Adamson House to do it. After Panoma Junction the new section of line runs down Panoma Strand and crosses the water again, heading over Chester Road and running Paralell with White City Way, either at ground level or on viaduct (stealing space from the Police HQ), over Talbot Road and through the bowels club, and we're there, at Trafford Bar Depot.

The lines via St Wellingbrough Road will continue as Metrolink until capacity is even more constrained over Stockport Viaduct, then it will be four tracked between Trafford and Didsbury, 2 metrolink and 2 heavy rail into Central, the 2nd stockport station re-opended and everything via Hazel Grove (or most things) running into Central instead.

Nym,....Do I take it you mean to terminate the Manchester Metrolink lines at the Central complex or have you now discounted the Second City Crossing plan which involves the relocation of the Cenotaph in St Peters Square ?

 

[Nym]

Nym,....Do I take it you mean to terminate the Manchester Metrolink lines at the Central complex or have you now discounted the Second City Crossing plan which involves the relocation of the Cenotaph in St Peters Square ?

No, I'm more on about if we have heavy rail re-going-back-to or re-openings that these would use Central.

My preferred location for additional Metrolink capacity beyond 2CC is Oxford Road (combined with a station re-build).

2 or 3 bays at Platforms 5, 6 and 7 at Oxford Road Station, fed from an 'open viaduct'

 

[PR1Berske]

So the alternative to Metrolink is "demolish everything and start again"?!

 

[stockport1]

So the alternative to Metrolink is "demolish everything and start again"?!

No. the odsall chord is going to help optimize existing infrastructure usage but at some point the tweaks and optimizations will reach diminishing returns in terms of cost.

at some point in the future beyond the odsall chord the capacity beast will rear its head again. HS2 wont help cheshire commuters-manchester or address the growth of towns such as knutsord and northwich.

The trains in northwich are barely worth using for the size of town. i think the old "build it and they will come" would apply here.

Nym's ideas/proposals seem like sheer fantasy BUT would would probably be cheap when compared with some of the investment in the capital. Why does the rest of the UK get the crumbs from the table of the capital?

Why does liverpool-Manchester not have a high speed link? I mean for the worlds first passenger line to just be getting electrified? ffs? It takes longer now that it did in the days of steam to get from liv-man. never mind chester-atrincham-manchester. cheshire commuters can go jump.

transport policy beyond london is a joke. its a shame that we have to cheer a few miles of electrification and maybe a few hundred yards of viaduct in the odsall chord.

(when im dictator nym will be appointed head of railways :P)

 

[PR1Berske]

"transport policy beyond london is a joke"

Oh, on this I agree, as I've said on here many times. Not that I'm so anti-Metrolink as you though

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Re-build Cornbrook Interchange so that everything through Trafford Bar, with separate platforms for NR and Metrolink, however you like, preferably paired by direction at Cornbrook with Metrolink on the outside (to make use of the flyover to the south west, and provide another for the lines toward Manchester to pair by usage on the viaducts, or just pair by use. Paired by use might be better for versatility as it would allow the CLC stoppers to use Central). All Metrolink runs via Panoma you may want to re-build this with 4 platforms instead of 2, demolishing Adamson House to do it. After Panoma Junction the new section of line runs down Panoma Strand and crosses the water again, heading over Chester Road and running Parallel with White City Way, either at ground level or on viaduct (stealing space from the Police HQ), over Talbot Road and through the bowels club, and we're there, at Trafford Bar Depot.

I take it you are referring to the Pomona area that borders both the local authority areas of Trafford and Manchester. Have you, during your researches into this project, consulted the strategic local area plans of both settlements with regards to their future intended land utilisation in the areas so described within your posting.

I am somewhat concerned with your proposal to demolish Adamson House and ask if you have looked deeply into the land utilisation plan of the area that is adjacent to that building.

The final matter that I wish to query concerns your proposed reduction in the available land allocation that is part of the Greater Manchester Police complex on Chester Road. Have you, during your researches, had sight of the Police land requirements for any future extension of their facilities there. I am very well aware of the new large and extensive Greater Manchester Police complex in the Monsall area of North Manchester that is part of the new Central Park development zone, but that is not to say that the existing site at Chester Road will not see any future changes.

 

[northwichcat]

A bit of a contradiction here, because this solution would still leave Hale and Altrincham with only 1tph and no direct link to the Airport! Perhaps a shuttle service could also be provided between Altrincham and Knutsford to connect with the Airport services?

Not necessarily.

With peak time extras from the Mid-Cheshire line starting/terminating at Stockport that has resulted in more people changing at Altrincham for Manchester.

Also Knutsford and Northwich don't get a bus link to the Airport but Altrincham does. Again another reason for changing at Altrincham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not meant to be a fast line only to Media City UK, so please look at the total number of stops there are after Cornbrook that serve all these business complexes en route through the Salford Quays area to Media City UK.

Think of it more as a business commuter transportation route.

Yes I realise that. When the Salford Quays Metrolink line was first built I doubt a heavy rail link could be justified instead of or as well as. However, now the BBC have one of it's main centres there with ITV and Channel 4 also expected to move departments there shortly a fast service should be more viable.

 

[snail]

So the alternative to Metrolink is "demolish everything and start again"?!

If you live in Cheshire, apparently yes.

I'm sure Manchester City Council would be happy to give back Manchester Central for rail use. Who needs exhibitions and party conferences in the city when there are people in Northwich and Altrincham that need to get to Manchester quickly.

 

[tbtc]

No. the odsall chord is going to help optimize existing infrastructure usage but at some point the tweaks and optimizations will reach diminishing returns in terms of cost.

at some point in the future beyond the odsall chord the capacity beast will rear its head again. HS2 wont help cheshire commuters-manchester or address the growth of towns such as knutsord and northwich

I don't think that anyone is pretending that HS2 is going to solve everything - it's only one line - there are plenty of other expensive things being done in the meantime though, and Manchester is getting more than it's share of the infrastructure improvements (new chords/ new platforms/ electrified lines etc).

Yet there are still plenty of complaints...

 

[PR1Berske]

I don't think that anyone is pretending that HS2 is going to solve everything - it's only one line - there are plenty of other expensive things being done in the meantime though, and Manchester is getting more than it's share of the infrastructure improvements (new chords/ new platforms/ electrified lines etc).

Yet there are still plenty of complaints...

Well, some of the complaints are justified, as "investment in NW rail" only ever means "we're making Manchester better and screw the rest of you."

 

[tbtc]

Well, some of the complaints are justified, as "investment in NW rail" only ever means "we're making Manchester better and screw the rest of you."

Like the line from Manchester to Preston and Blackpool? The line from Liverpool to Wigan (and on to Preston/ Blackpool)? Do these not benefit the people in Preston? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not necessarily.

With peak time extras from the Mid-Cheshire line starting/terminating at Stockport that has resulted in more people changing at Altrincham for Manchester.

Also Knutsford and Northwich don't get a bus link to the Airport but Altrincham does. Again another reason for changing at Altrincham.

Nevertheless I would still maintain that Hale (which, like Knutsford and Northwich, has no direct bus link to the Airport) is also deserving of improved services, especially off-peak. These could be provided by a heavy rail shuttle, or by tram-train (if the technical issues can be resolved at acceptable cost) or by a (single track) Metrolink extension from Altrincham.

 

[Nym]

I take it you are referring to the Pomona area that borders both the local authority areas of Trafford and Manchester. Have you, during your researches into this project, consulted the strategic local area plans of both settlements with regards to their future intended land utilisation in the areas so described within your posting.

No, I see blank land and use it...

n
I am somewhat concerned with your proposal to demolish Adamson House and ask if you have looked deeply ito the land utilisation plan of the area that is adjacent to that building.

The final matter that I wish to query concerns your proposed reduction in the available land allocation that is part of the Greater Manchester Police complex on Chester Road. Have you, during your researches, had sight of the Police land requirements for any future extension of their facilities there. I am very well aware of the new large and extensive Greater Manchester Police complex in the Monsall area of North Manchester that is part of the new Central Park development zone, but that is not to say that the existing site at Chester Road will not see any future changes.

I have considered the expansion at this site and with the current provision of car parking only just being sufficent it would be likely that the Metrolink would be on an elevated viaduct, so the main consideration would be visual blght and lighting concerns on the building (that can be mitigated by internal lighting) as well as noise concerns, again, dampers can be used in an attempt to mitigate noise concerns. Mainly from the WRI (Wheel Rail Interface).

In light of HS2 there is some capacity that can be locally gained from HS2 on the Castlefeild Jcn side of Manchester, but it would need to be designed into the HS2 layout at minute one. I'm sure you can imagine how links to the CLC line at Culceath, Chat Moss Line and (as planned) WCML at Wigan, with a delta junction on a four track core leading into Manchester from both directions would be able to provide capacity for electrified and non-electrified trains into Piccadilly via the HS2 lines between HS services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have considered the expansion at this site and with the current provision of car parking only just being sufficent it would be likely that the Metrolink would be on an elevated viaduct, so the main consideration would be visual blght and lighting concerns on the building (that can be mitigated by internal lighting) as well as noise concerns, again, dampers can be used in an attempt to mitigate noise concerns. Mainly from the WRI (Wheel Rail Interface).

Have you consulted the requirements inherant when planning applications are made that may well have adverse effects upon adjacent properties. I note your stated methods of mitigation, but how do you think the local authority concerned would view these. Did you expect any objections to such a proposal being lodged by the owners of Adamson House that would affect them or their tenants. In respect of the Police building in the other part of your original posting, who do you propose to make contact with, noting who are the current residents.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, I see blank land and use it...

Surely not without making land searches to establish who actually owns the said land....hock:

 

[Nym]

Have you consulted the requirements inherant when planning applications are made that may well have adverse effects upon adjacent properties. I note your stated methods of mitigation, but how do you think the local authority concerned would view these. Did you expect any objections to such a proposal being lodged by the owners of Adamson House that would affect them or their tenants.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Surely not without making land searches to establish who actually owns the said land....hock:

I let the project managers deal with who actually owns the land, I provide options for feasability. When putting in a planning application the post works noise from the WRI or other direct sources need to be something like limited to 3dB, 7dB or 10dB above ambient, depending on service frequency etc.

Most LA planning authorities at high level just want to see the +/- numbers compared with ambient, and with Chester Road nearby the ambient levels arent too low anyway, and with no real residential presence to pay off for potential blight and hardship, one might even be able to get away with 7dB or even 10dB over ambient for short periods.

As an extreme if one can get away with the visual blight, a flying tunnel could be put into place to eliminate noise, similar to Shordich High Street station, but then you need to make it look pretty to mitigate social and visual problems, but again, we're on an industrial and commercial estate with little housing.

To gain the full benifit you'd need a minimum of one additional platform at Panoma (for pathing intergration) and this could be pulled off south of the water, but would be significantly more expensive. It may well be cheaper to just buy out Adamson House, but my overall preference is trying my damndest to avoid tunneling in the area, if you think it's bad trying to get past GM police at Ground or Viaduct level, try tunneling, you won't get anywhere.

Where as a DLResqe structural viaduct wouldn't take too much actual land space that would never likely be used by a building at GM Police, and any further expansion wouldn't really be possible there anyway due to the parking issue. Visual problems can be de-blighted by using flying tunnels like I said, and making it look pretty.

 

[radamfi]

You may have missed the point that I endeavoured to make, which is a direct transportation corridor from the north part of the Greater Manchester area to the south part of the area. One of the recent points that have been revealed was the lack of direct north-south cross-city bus routes since degregulation that cause a change of service needed to be made. I am old enough to remember bus routes such as Moston in North Manchester to Sale Moor in South Manchester, to name but one of these.

By all means, introduce new bus routes, but use these as part of a totally integrated public transport system comprising Heavy Rail train services, Manchester Metrolink and buses with low atmosphere-damaging exhaust emissions.

I presume you are aware of the cross-city bus corridors being built as we speak? Ultimately there will be three bus corridors linked together, meeting at Portland Street/Princess Street.

The cross-city links were deliberately broken to cut down on bus congestion in the city centre through the bus wars of the late 80s/early 90s.

However, it must be remembered that you can't link everywhere to everywhere by a direct service. Changing is inevitable so it is best to make interchange as convenient as possible. That also means it should not cost extra to change compared to getting a through service.

If you look at most European cities, you don't get vast numbers of buses converging on the city centre. Instead, buses are typically used as feeders to the metro/rail/tram networks.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I presume you are aware of the cross-city bus corridors being built as we speak? Ultimately there will be three bus corridors linked together, meeting at Portland Street/Princess Street.

Indeed I am, is not Middleton one of these areas, with Boothstown and East Didsbury also featured in these plans?

Howsoever, I was making historical reference to past cross-city services in an attempt to clarify a certain matter. The south-east to north-west service 22 from Stockport to Bolton is something of a current rarity in matters that are current in conjoining north and south areas of the conurbation, but this passes no nearer to the centre of Manchester than either Chorlton or Stretford.

 

[radamfi]

Even before deregulation, cross-city buses were a rarity in Manchester, with most buses terminating at Piccadilly or Arndale. This may have been a legacy of each municipality in the urban area having their own transport operation.

Cross-city services are generally preferred in urban transport systems as it means that there is no need for large areas of the city centre reserved for vehicle layover and improves capacity. Compare, for example, the large number of platforms at major mainline terminii and the 2 track railways required for cross-city railways such as Thameslink.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even before deregulation, cross-city buses were a rarity in Manchester, with most buses terminating at Piccadilly or Arndale. This may have been a legacy of each municipality in the urban area having their own transport operation.

Perhaps my "great" age, which enables me to recall transport matters prevailing in the early 1950's period and trolley bus services running in Manchester and depots such as Rochdale Road being well used, is useful to remember matters in cross-city Manchester travel.

In an earlier posting, I made reference to the 112/113 service from Moston to Sale Moor. Another two services from that time period that featured Manchester cross-city running that easily spring to my mind were:-
Service 62...Heaton Park to Chorltonville
Service 80...Moston to Chorlton.

 

[Holly]

...
The best all round solution is to extend the Airport spur to the Mid-Cheshire line and to then extend one of the services that terminates at the Airport to Chester or North Wales via Northwich and another to Liverpool via Northwich and Runcorn. ...

It would be a good solution.

Since, apparently, a new HS2 station will be built at Manchester airport, it seems sensible to somehow combine a shared right of way for the two projects. Maybe even a shared station.

That is not to suggest sharing tracks with HS2, only sharing a single right of way corridor across green fields. Engineering and/or construction train access to HS2 will be needed anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

Nevertheless I would still maintain that Hale (which, like Knutsford and Northwich, has no direct bus link to the Airport) is also deserving of improved services, especially off-peak. These could be provided by a heavy rail shuttle, or by tram-train (if the technical issues can be resolved at acceptable cost) or by a (single track) Metrolink extension from Altrincham.

I agree that Hale needs a better service and that Altrincham needs more services to Knutsford but I did say

"The best all round solution..."

The best all round solution should look at the wider benefits. Freeing up space on the Piccadilly-Airport line by having, for instance, North Wales-Sheffield via the Airport instead of two trains on the Piccadilly-Airport line does represent a benefit other than an enhanced local service.

 

[tbtc]

I agree that Hale needs a better service and that Altrincham needs more services to Knutsford but I did say

"The best all round solution..."

The best all round solution should look at the wider benefits. Freeing up space on the Piccadilly-Airport line by having, for instance, North Wales-Sheffield via the Airport instead of two trains on the Piccadilly-Airport line does represent a benefit other than an enhanced local service.

Presumably that's on top of the existing Manchester services to/from Sheffield/ North Wales and not diverting existing trains via the Airport at the expense of current Manchester links?

 

[northwichcat]

Presumably that's on top of the existing Manchester services to/from Sheffield/ North Wales and not diverting existing trains via the Airport at the expense of current Manchester links?

In the case of South TPE it already does Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport. With the spur extended you could turn that in to Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Northwich-North Wales and more effectively use paths on the Piccadilly-Airport line than introducing another regular link to the Airport from North Wales and adding yet another service on the Piccadilly-Airport line.

 

[Greybeard33]

In the case of South TPE it already does Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport. With the spur extended you could turn that in to Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Northwich-North Wales and more effectively use paths on the Piccadilly-Airport line than introducing another regular link to the Airport from North Wales and adding yet another service on the Piccadilly-Airport line.

And, perhaps even more importantly, this would free a path on the South Junction line that could then be used for an additional service around the Ordsall Chord. So getting us back to the original subject of this thread after a diversion over the Mid-Cheshire line!!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the case of South TPE it already does Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport. With the spur extended you could turn that in to Cleethorpes-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Northwich-North Wales and more effectively use paths on the Piccadilly-Airport line than introducing another regular link to the Airport from North Wales and adding yet another service on the Piccadilly-Airport line.

There is the other line option of Cleethorpes-Doncaster-Sheffield-Stockport-Manchester Piccadilly- Earlestown-Warrington Bank Quay-Chester-North Wales Stations, which would offer a better track for the heavy-duty Class 185 units between Manchester Piccadilly and Chester, than the mid-Cheshire line. This would also free-up paths on the Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport line, as Manchester Airport would not be served, as will be the case when a Manchester Airport-Newcastle service will become a Liverpool-Newcastle service in the forward plans of First TPE. As tbtc has commented in the post, not every settlement really needs a direct service to Manchester Airport.

My plan above would discount the need for a spur from Manchester Airport to the mid-Cheshire line, with all the financial savings that entails.

 

[northwichcat]

My plan above would discount the need for a spur from Manchester Airport to the mid-Cheshire line, with all the financial savings that entails.

There is a need for investment for more capacity to be allowed for trains approaching Manchester from the South. The cost of extending the Airport spur would be cheaper than adding an additional 2 tracks between Stockport and Manchester.

You also comment about 'not everywhere needing a service to the Airport' and yes that's a problem really everywhere (except the Crewe line) that get's an Airport service has it starting/terminating at the Airport and not continuing beyond the Airport. So you could reduce the number of services on the Airport-Piccadilly line but increase the number of Airport services, which would then make it easier for an enhanced local service - maybe Styal could get a regular service.

There is the other line option of Cleethorpes-Doncaster-Sheffield-Stockport-Manchester Piccadilly- Earlestown-Warrington Bank Quay-Chester-North Wales Stations, which would offer a better track for the heavy-duty Class 185 units between Manchester Piccadilly and Chester, than the mid-Cheshire line.

I don't see why the Mid-Cheshire line should be an issue for 185 usage.

If the Airport spur were to join the Mid-Cheshire line the extension could be built to allow at least 75mph running, it wouldn't require trains using the tight bend around Deansgate Junction. While, the Leftwich viaduct is set to get it's speed limit raised to 50mph in the next couple of years, which would be in line with Edgley viaduct on the WCML. 175s are able to run at Sprinter speeds on the Mid-Cheshire line, something they can't do on every line.

This would also free-up paths on the Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport line, as Manchester Airport would not be served, as will be the case when a Manchester Airport-Newcastle service will become a Liverpool-Newcastle service in the forward plans of First TPE.

The closer towns and cities of York, Leeds and Huddersfield will retain 2 fast tph to the Airport though, as the Newcastle-Manchester Airport service is not simply being diverted to Liverpool it's being replaced by two services and one of which is a Newcastle-Liverpool and the other is a York-Manchester Airport service.

Whenever a service pattern is changed a period of consultation occurs and ticket selling patterns are examined. You're probably aware about the recent consultation of replacing the Victoria-Huddersfield stopper with 2 semi-fasts once the Ordsall Chord opens and then reinstating the stopper alongside the semi-fasts after electrification work is complete.

The Newcastle camp on the whole seem happy with the proposed changes. Hull and Middlesbrough want more information while Barrow and Scarborough seem unhappy.

In the case of Barrow I imagine they want to keep their Airport service but the passenger numbers maybe don't support that.

 

[tbtc]

TO get (roughly!) back on topic, I think that the pathing at Piccadilly would be best served with (almost) all Airport services running to/from the Deansgate lines and (almost) all Deansgate - Piccadilly services continuing to the Airport.

That way you can run Piccadilly as basically three separate stations:

• Ardwick services (Guide Bridge, Glossop, New Mills Central etc)
• Stockport services (Buxton, Birmingham, Crewe etc)
• Deansgate to Airport services (including those from Huddersfield, Bolton and Warrington)

This should allow more paths into/ out of Piccadilly (in the way that Waterloo runs as three (?) parallel stations.

At the moment you have services crossing other lines (like the Scarborough to Liverpool services that cross the whole throat) or reversing at Piccadilly. Plus you have passengers unsure of where the next Airport service leaves from (some from platform 13, around half from various platforms in the main "shed").

That means maybe four Airport trains from Yorkshire via Manchester Victoria and the Ordsall Chord (say two from the Calder Valley and two from the Huddersfield line?) with the remainder from Bolton/ Chat Moss/ Warrington).

I'm not sure about a service from Sheffield to Chester via Stockport, Piccadilly (reverse), Airport and the Mid Cheshire line though - that would be a fairly slow way of getting there (compared to the current ATW services from Manchester to Chester).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a need for investment for more capacity to be allowed for trains approaching Manchester from the South. The cost of extending the Airport spur would be cheaper than adding an additional 2 tracks between Stockport and Manchester.

But surely, this was the reason why the south-facing spur from Manchester Airport railway station was constructed in the first place, which allows your stated comment of "approaching Manchester (and its airport) from the South". There will be no new costs involved, as this connection has already been built and is available for immediate use.

You have requested a link to be constructed from the mid-Cheshire line to Manchester Airport which will link to a somewhat secondary railway route in terms of major railway line terminology to this airport. Of course, I am sure that a certain Knutsford involvement has nothing whatsoever to do with your espousement of this ambition.

You will note that I personally have never made a request for a newly-constructed rail link from the major line at Macclesfield through to Wilmslow station which will enable another link from a major rail route from the South to access Manchester Airport railway station, with strangely may pass through a settlement of Prestbury and its railway station, that is home to a certain forum member who shall go un-named.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see why the Mid-Cheshire line should be an issue for 185 usage.

I remember comment in the past on postings on other sub-forums that stated the Class 185 units are very hard on the good quality trackwork and its substrate of major railway routes, so from what I have also seen in the past concerning posting information about the trackwork and the underlying land that the mid-Cheshire line traverses over, I made a connection of both these two items and stated this in my original posting.

Is there a fallacy inherent in my assumption made from the postings of other forum members over the last two years or were the other past postings that I had seen and read factually incorrect in their statements? Perhaps you would care to comment upon this point.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure about a service from Sheffield to Chester via Stockport, Piccadilly (reverse), Airport and the Mid Cheshire line though - that would be a fairly slow way of getting there (compared to the current ATW services from Manchester to Chester).

If you put Chester to Sheffield in to journey planners they usually tell you the fastest way is Chester-Stockport and then Stockport-Sheffield due to the better connections.

Manchester Piccadilly-Airport-Mobberley-Chester limited stop would probably be just over an hour in timing which would be similar to the current Piccadilly-Warrington-Chester service.

Plus you have passengers unsure of where the next Airport service leaves from (some from platform 13, around half from various platforms in the main "shed").

While it's not well publicised Hull and Scarborough have a relatively easy Airport connection. Westbound they need to board the Manchester/Liverpool service, alight at Huddersfield and then board an Airport train from the same platform 15 minutes later. No need to carry bags and suitcases around intermediate stations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course, I am sure that a certain Knutsford involvement has nothing whatsoever to do with your espousement of this ambition.

You will note that I personally have never made a request for a newly-constructed rail link from the major line at Macclesfield through to Wilmslow station which will enable another link from a major rail route from the South to access Manchester Airport railway station, with strangely may pass through a settlement of Prestbury and its railway station, that is home to a certain forum member who shall go un-named.

The idea is not one I've thought up. It's one Cheshire County Council came up with in the mid-1990s. The idea was liked by Railtrack/Network Rail but they've always looked at it as a long term plan and not something needing to built in the next few years. Cheshire CC saw the main advantage of it as direct Airport links for local stations in Cheshire. Network Rail see the main advantage of it as allowing more Airport links without making the track between Manchester and the Airport quadruple.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The idea is not one I've thought up. It's one Cheshire County Council came up with in the mid-1990s. The idea was liked by Railtrack/Network Rail but they've always looked at it as a long term plan and not something needing to built in the next few years. Cheshire CC saw the main advantage of it as direct Airport links for local stations in Cheshire. Network Rail see the main advantage of it as allowing more Airport links without making the track between Manchester and the Airport quadruple.

Before its demise, did the Strategic Rail Authority ever make comment in the early part of this century with regard to the link to the mid-Cheshire line. In what recent Network Rail RUS was this project last discussed in terms of a preferred route ? You make mention of Cheshire County Council in your posting, but there are now Cheshire West and Cheshire East separate entities. Do they both see the matter with the same eyes, as the mid-Cheshire line traverses the areas of both these newly-established County Councils?

You do say that Network Rail see the advantage of that route, but conversely, did they at the same time make note of the south-facing junction on the Styal line in terms of affording access to Manchester Airport railway station from the south, which would also not require extra pathways through the central Manchester rail core.