Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[daodao]

I would be surprised if the cost was less than £150m of P15/16 and is unlikely to bring the same benefits. There is no cheap option apart from wait and see what happens after the resignaling, Ordsall Chord completion and P13/14 + waiting area revamp.



A new electrification scheme? Not going to happen any time soon!

Electrifying this key interurban route between Manchester and Liverpool with 4 passenger trains per hour, many important intermediate stops, and where both ends of the route are already electrified, is surely of greater value than many of the electrification schemes that have been proposed. It would also help with streamlining operations between Knott Mill and Piccadilly.

 

[HSTEd]

The CLC line via Warrington Central should be electrified at 25kV. It shouldn't be prohibitively expensive to electrify, given that it no longer has any branches and both ends are already electrified. This would speed up the stopping service and allow these trains to be joined at the eastern end to existing local electric trains to the Airport/Alderley Edge/Macclesfield/Hazel Grove that currently terminate at Piccadilly.

Do you want to get into the fight with Merseytravel over who pays for the fitting of a huge number of pantographs to its fleet of new units, and pays for their ongoing maintenance?

The CLC is not the route between Liverpool and Manchester likely to have express traffic in the future. If anything the service should broken at Warrington CEntral and service west of their handed to Merseyrail with a third rail extension.
But that won't happen.

But 25kV electrification certainly is never going to happen.

 

[daodao]

Do you want to get into the fight with Merseytravel over who pays for the fitting of a huge number of pantographs to its fleet of new units, and pays for their ongoing maintenance?

The CLC is not the route between Liverpool and Manchester likely to have express traffic in the future. If anything the service should broken at Warrington CEntral and service west of their handed to Merseyrail with a third rail extension.
But that won't happen.

But 25kV electrification certainly is never going to happen.

This is nothing to do with Merseyrail; there is a short length of joint running west of Hunt's Cross, but their new 3rd rail emus won't be venturing east of Hunt's Cross and don't need pantographs.

 

[HSTEd]

This is nothing to do with Merseyrail; there is a short length of joint running west of Hunt's Cross, but their new 3rd rail emus won't be venturing east of Hunt's Cross and don't need pantographs.

Then how do you propose to handle Hunt's Cross - it is hard to think of many dual electrification schemes that actually work properly.

Especially ones that are something like 1200+m of joint running, which is what you need between Hunt's Cross and the sidings outside South Parkway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Then how do you propose to handle Hunt's Cross - it is hard to think of many dual electrification schemes that actually work properly.
Especially ones that are something like 1200+m of joint running, which is what you need between Hunt's Cross and the sidings outside South Parkway.

The Berlin Stadtbahn (12km) seems to work well enough with adjacent 800V DC 3rd rail and 15kV AC.

CLC electrification would be a lot cheaper than the Piccadilly P15/16 scheme (if it delivered similar benefits, ie paths/hour).

 

[snowball]

Then how do you propose to handle Hunt's Cross - it is hard to think of many dual electrification schemes that actually work properly.

What examples do you have in mind of ones that you consider don't work properly, and in what way do they not work?

 

[PR1Berske]

Germany's railways are not British. British railways are not German.

 

[daodao]

Then how do you propose to handle Hunt's Cross - it is hard to think of many dual electrification schemes that actually work properly.

Especially ones that are something like 1200+m of joint running, which is what you need between Hunt's Cross and the sidings outside South Parkway.

Track diagrams suggest that the length of joint running is much less than 1200 metres, and it could be reduced to (virtually) nil by layout redesign, IF required. The layout west of Hunt's Cross was originally 4-track, and the Merseyrail electric services run on a separate single track for most of this section.

 

[notlob.divad]

Watford junction to euston has 3rd rail dc and 25kv ohle running for side by side for the majority of ita length.
However, merseyrails new trains are having space for pantographs and transformers built in, as extending to Warrington Central, and extensions onto other 25kv electrified tracks in the area is a long term aim and envisaged within the lifespan of the rolling stock. So it isn't as big an issue as made out.

Tram-train metrolink extension Pomona to Irlam possibly with a big Park and Ride off the M62. With a Merseyrail extension to Warrington or Birchwood may work for the stoppers, but I still think a faster through train would need to run.

As for the cost of moving the freight, I don't doubt it would cost a huge amount, but in the long run it is sensible to seperate the freight and passenger flows and avoid the freight going through major stations such as Piccadilly and Oxford Road, and with the potential for a major shake up of freight flows aroundvthe UK with L2 and now Brexit, it would be s good time to act and improve efficiencies.

 

[Senex]

But 25kV electrification certainly is never going to happen.

Why not? Because multiple electrified routes between major cities some 30 to 40 miles apart is permissible only for Scotland?

 

[daodao]

Watford junction to euston has 3rd rail dc and 25kv ohle running for side by side for the majority of ita length.
However, merseyrails new trains are having space for pantographs and transformers built in, as extending to Warrington Central, and extensions onto other 25kv electrified tracks in the area is a long term aim and envisaged within the lifespan of the rolling stock. So it isn't as big an issue as made out.

Tram-train metrolink extension Pomona to Irlam possibly with a big Park and Ride off the M62. With a Merseyrail extension to Warrington or Birchwood may work for the stoppers, but I still think a faster through train would need to run.

As for the cost of moving the freight, I don't doubt it would cost a huge amount, but in the long run it is sensible to seperate the freight and passenger flows and avoid the freight going through major stations such as Piccadilly and Oxford Road, and with the potential for a major shake up of freight flows aroundvthe UK with L2 and now Brexit, it would be s good time to act and improve efficiencies.

There is no easy way to access Trafford Park without running through Knott Mill onto the CLC line, following closure of the Fallowfield loop line many years ago. There is no longer any other access to the CLC line except at Liverpool South Parkway, following closure of the Skelton Junction to Glazebrook line. Most other freight that needs to go west from the south side of Greater M/c is already routed via Skelton Junction and the CLC mid-Cheshire line, which is already fairly full and has a number of level crossings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What examples do you have in mind of ones that you consider don't work properly, and in what way do they not work?

Euston has more than Hunts X would.

 

[Chester1]

Ignoring that its a massive tangent to the thread topic... while in theory electrification of the line is a good idea it won't happen in the current climate. If it is electrified it would not be by third rail which the ORR will not allow. The simplest solution of would be to cut back Merseyrail services to Liverpool South Parkway, remove the third rail and run all Hunts Cross services into Lime Street. This would be a worse service for Hunts Cross but still a decent one of probably 4tph.

A proposed solution for Trafford Park (in a report, I can't which one) was to build a chord linking the CLC to the WCML using the old trackbed to the north of Warrington Central. It would be more expensive than building P15/16. As I keep saying, once the 4tph of extra services has been running for a while a decision on the platforms will probably be made. It seems to be the cheapest solution because freight diversion infrastructure and Castlefield Junction rebuilding will cost too much and provide less capacity.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

A proposed solution for Trafford Park (in a report, I can't which one) was to build a chord linking the CLC to the WCML using the old trackbed to the north of Warrington Central.

Manchester Hub GRIP2, and has cropped up again recently. You also need to give Trafford Park a west-facing entrance (it has none).

 

[Greybeard33]

Manchester Hub GRIP2, and has cropped up again recently. You also need to give Trafford Park a west-facing entrance (it has none).

From the Manchester Hub Rail Study report:

5.12 Future opportunities remaining
[snip]
Looking forward as growth continues the further
infrastructure interventions might have a case including
the following:
• a western link for freight services from Trafford Park,
allowing a greater number of passenger services on the
Castlefield corridor....

Appendix B - Infrastructure interventions considered
This appendix summarises the engineering
interventions that have been considered as part of the
Manchester Hub Study Phase Two.
[snip]

[SIZE="1"]Scheme 			Scope 					Railway System Capability Benefit

5.14 Western entrance 	Additional electrified loops and S&C   	Potential for relief of capacity on the
to Trafford Park	to permit access to the west. Requires	Castlefield corridor. Supports diversion
terminal 		either 5.15 or 5.16 too.		of freight to the West Coast Main Line
								(WCML) at Warrington or Winwick Jn.
 
5.15 New link between	Reinstatement of twin track railway,	As 5.14.
Padgate and the		electrified, on extant corridor at
WCML 			Warrington and new junctions at
			Padgate and on the WCML.

5.16 New link from	Reinstatement of twin track railway,	As 5.14.
Glazebrook to		electrified, on substantially extant
Kenyon 			corridor and new junctions at Kenyon on
			the Chat Moss line.
 [/SIZE]

I believe 5.16 (reopening part of the disused Wigan Junction Railways alignment), would now conflict with the HS2 Phase 2b route, not to mention the M62 and the Culcheth Linear Park.

Note that 5.15 would involve electrification of the eastern half of the CLC, to maintain electrified access to Trafford Park.

 

[HSTEd]

What examples do you have in mind of ones that you consider don't work properly, and in what way do they not work?

Well the the chief one that springs to mind was the dual electrification of the segments of the NLL that lead to all sorts of interesting signalling faults and corrosion problems that led to the line being converted, in large part, to a pure 25kV operation once 313s became available for the service.

Why not? Because multiple electrified routes between major cities some 30 to 40 miles apart is permissible only for Scotland?

They are only permissable when there might actually be traffic to justify it.
TPE and Northern Rail both haemmorhage huge amounts of money, there is no justification for more services between Liverpool and Manchester when the existing ones are not crush loaded and nowhere near the maximum permissable length.

Watford junction to euston has 3rd rail dc and 25kv ohle running for side by side for the majority of ita length.
However, merseyrails new trains are having space for pantographs and transformers built in, as extending to Warrington Central, and extensions onto other 25kv electrified tracks in the area is a long term aim and envisaged within the lifespan of the rolling stock. So it isn't as big an issue as made out

Running side by side is not the same as sharing tracks. Earthing arrangements that are perfectly adequate in the former situation will fail miserably in a situation where the running rails used for both systems are either the same rail or are electrically bonded.

The question is not the technical capability of the Merseyrail stock, but simply how much money will have to be paid by Network Rail to Merseyrail in return for the significant expense of fitting, testing and maintaining pantographs that would not be required otherwise.
Especially since the entire Merseyrail fleet would probably have to be fitted, and that it is highly unlikely that any other 25kV running will be associated with Merseyrail in the near future considering the collapse of the electrification programme.

But this is all a rather serious aside.
The simplest way to deal with the freight capacity bottleneck would probably be to pay for a subsidised coastal freight run from Felixstowe/Thamesport/Southampton to the Port of Manchester.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Note that 5.15 would involve electrification of the eastern half of the CLC, to maintain electrified access to Trafford Park.

That would not upset me

 

[158756]

From the Manchester Hub Rail Study report:

I believe 5.16 (reopening part of the disused Wigan Junction Railways alignment), would now conflict with the HS2 Phase 2b route, not to mention the M62 and the Culcheth Linear Park.

Note that 5.15 would involve electrification of the eastern half of the CLC, to maintain electrified access to Trafford Park.

HS2 looks to take part of the alignment for 5.16 near Glazebrook, and would be in the way of any curve at Kenyon. Much of the rest is close to the old line so works for cuttings or embankments might make it impossible to reopen anyway.

The corridor for 5.15 is not so extant as the report says - the alignment for the last half mile or so to the WCML is completely gone, and there was never a junction there anyway, so you'd have to demolish a swathe of Warrington. Plus the A50 crosses the line at grade, several bridges are missing, and the surviving embankment has large trees growing out of it.

Both would require significant distances of electrification (Kenyon-Glazebrook-Trafford Park or Warrington-Trafford Park) further adding to the costs. I'd be surprised if either was cheaper than the Piccadilly works.

The container terminal alongside the passenger lines at Trafford Park looks easy enough to run a line into. Accessing the Freightliner terminal from the west looks very awkward.

 

[snowball]

There seem to be buidings at Warrington (probably industrial) in the way of the Padgate link. (Edit:158756 has now said this.)

Joseph has mentioned Port Salford as an alternative to the existing rail lins to Trafford Park. The lifting road (and possible future Metrolink) bridge over the ship canal at Barton that collapsed last year while under construction is likely to open by the end of the year. When that happens the A57 will be diverted near Barton Airport to link to it. The old A57 alignment will no longer be an obstacle to the possible construction of a link from the Chat Moss line to Port Salford. The abutments are in place for a rail bridge over the diverted A57, but as far as I know, nobody is hurrying to complete that bridge.

 

[Greybeard33]

There seem to be buidings at Warrington (probably industrial) in the way of the Padgate link. (Edit:158756 has now said this.)

Joseph has mentioned Port Salford as an alternative to the existing rail lins to Trafford Park. The lifting road (and possible future Metrolink) bridge over the ship canal at Barton that collapsed last year while under construction is likely to open by the end of the year. When that happens the A57 will be diverted near Barton Airport to link to it. The old A57 alignment will no longer be an obstacle to the possible construction of a link from the Chat Moss line to Port Salford. The abutments are in place for a rail bridge over the diverted A57, but as far as I know, nobody is hurrying to complete that bridge.

The A57 realignment is scheduled to be complete in November, according to http://www.portsalford.co.uk/news-1/. However, regarding the rail bridge abutments, I am not sure what to make of this statement on the road contractor's website http://www.hochtief-construction.co.uk/roads_WGIS.shtml:

Through value engineering and working collaboratively with suppliers and the designer, we removed the requirement for a costly reinforced underpass where a future railway link to the Port of Salford will cross.

The rail terminal was a condition of the planning approval for Port Salford, although the first warehouse facilities have since been permitted to open with only road access. AFAIK there has been no announcement of funding or a construction schedule for the rail link. The Port Salford website merely says that planning and discussion with Network Rail is ongoing.

The render of the completed rail terminal on the website shows only four working tracks. I doubt that this would provide sufficient capacity to replace both the Euroterminal and the Freightliner terminal at Trafford Park.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They are only permissable when there might actually be traffic to justify it.
TPE and Northern Rail both haemmorhage huge amounts of money, there is no justification for more services between Liverpool and Manchester when the existing ones are not crush loaded and nowhere near the maximum permissable length.

Most EGIP services are hardly money spinners, aren't they? It's not like the Shotts line with its 2tph Sprinter service is bursting at the seams.

I think a bigger issue for Liverpool-Manchester electrification compared to Glasgow-Edinburgh is that services can't be as self-contained. Both the E&G and Shotts lines operate a shuttle service which will be electrified in its entirety. However, many of the Liverpool-Manchester services then head elsewhere. Electrification needs to be done in pairs of lines east and west of Manchester to make the most of the limited capacity through Piccadilly and Victoria.

The wildcard for electrification at the Manchester end is what Metrolink end up doing. Those loss-making stopping services are likely candidates for Metrolink tram-train operation and that will require electrification of some kind. I cannot see NR ever allowing the installation of 750V DC kit on the CLC line unless it were capable of 25kV AC in future too. They insisted on that for the Sheffield experiment and that's for a much less important line.

The question is not the technical capability of the Merseyrail stock, but simply how much money will have to be paid by Network Rail to Merseyrail in return for the significant expense of fitting, testing and maintaining pantographs that would not be required otherwise.
Especially since the entire Merseyrail fleet would probably have to be fitted, and that it is highly unlikely that any other 25kV running will be associated with Merseyrail in the near future considering the collapse of the electrification programme.

But this is all a rather serious aside.
The simplest way to deal with the freight capacity bottleneck would probably be to pay for a subsidised coastal freight run from Felixstowe/Thamesport/Southampton to the Port of Manchester.

The biggest thing I can see causing 25kV capability to be required for Merseyrail would be if the Lime Street stoppers are sent that way via a new connection. That may well end up being required to provide for HS2/NPR/whatever in future, and there's precisely zero possibility that the lines could just use 3rd rail instead (unlike other extensions like Skelmersdale).

 

[Chester1]

The rail terminal was a condition of the planning approval for Port Salford, although the first warehouse facilities have since been permitted to open with only road access. AFAIK there has been no announcement of funding or a construction schedule for the rail link. The Port Salford website merely says that planning and discussion with Network Rail is ongoing.

The render of the completed rail terminal on the website shows only four working tracks. I doubt that this would provide sufficient capacity to replace both the Euroterminal and the Freightliner terminal at Trafford Park.

I agree it is unrealistic for Port Salford to replace both terminals but it could justify removing the new freight path allocated as part of Northern Hub. Knowing that its competitors have a cap on their rail capacity might be enough for Peel to build the rail link.

 

[Nean]

They are only permissable when there might actually be traffic to justify it.
TPE and Northern Rail both haemmorhage huge amounts of money, there is no justification for more services between Liverpool and Manchester when the existing ones are not crush loaded and nowhere near the maximum permissable length.

Whilst the services down the line are not crush loaded, with any form of improvement to the service (i.e. normalizing the slightly bizarre stopping patterns) we will likely see the existing services quickly pushed to that point. I have spent many a journey to Manchester sat on a class 156 luggage rack or stood in the vestibule of a 6/185.

I would also invite all those suggesting cutting the line in half at Warrington or closing the Manchester connection altogether to actually use it and see that the passenger flows in the peaks are not entirely obvious- whilst there are quite large portions of passengers doing the normal flows (Villages>Manchester/Liverpool/Warrington) there are also a fairly significant number doing routes such as Villages>Birchwood or Manchester>Irlam/Birchwood. Whilst this may be slightly biased (I used to commute Manchester>HuntsX and still do the reverse 2-3x/week) there always seems to be people forgetting the cross-Warrington flow.

The biggest reliability problem on the line seems to be the acceleration of the 142/150/156s not being able to keep up with the timetable and delayed starts resulting in a ~3m delay by the time the stopper even reaches HuntsX. This delay then knocks on the following express that catches up with it causing it to be late into the Castlefield-Picc corridor.

As a local and regular (3+ returns/week) user of the line, my wish list (in order of want) would be:

• Regular Stopping Patterns
• More 4 car trains (and removing non-23m stock)
• Sensible ticketing (NT only advances to/from anywhere other than main stations got removed on the timetable change)
• Electrification and better accelerating trains
• Actually putting a sensible height platform at Sankey to stop certain guards telling us their life story all the way from Widnes...

These are all from a lay person and so I expect to be told that I'm completely wrong and the adults are talking...

 

[daodao]

Whilst the services down the line are not crush loaded, with any form of improvement to the service (i.e. normalizing the slightly bizarre stopping patterns) we will likely see the existing services quickly pushed to that point. I have spent many a journey to Manchester sat on a class 156 luggage rack or stood in the vestibule of a 6/185.

I would also invite all those suggesting cutting the line in half at Warrington or closing the Manchester connection altogether to actually use it and see that the passenger flows in the peaks are not entirely obvious- whilst there are quite large portions of passengers doing the normal flows (Villages>Manchester/Liverpool/Warrington) there are also a fairly significant number doing routes such as Villages>Birchwood or Manchester>Irlam/Birchwood. Whilst this may be slightly biased (I used to commute Manchester>HuntsX and still do the reverse 2-3x/week) there always seems to be people forgetting the cross-Warrington flow.

The biggest reliability problem on the line seems to be the acceleration of the 142/150/156s not being able to keep up with the timetable and delayed starts resulting in a ~3m delay by the time the stopper even reaches HuntsX. This delay then knocks on the following express that catches up with it causing it to be late into the Castlefield-Picc corridor.

As a local and regular (3+ returns/week) user of the line, my wish list (in order of want) would be:

• Regular Stopping Patterns
• More 4 car trains (and removing non-23m stock)
• Sensible ticketing (NT only advances to/from anywhere other than main stations got removed on the timetable change)
• Electrification and better accelerating trains
• Actually putting a sensible height platform at Sankey to stop certain guards telling us their life story all the way from Widnes...

These are all from a lay person and so I expect to be told that I'm completely wrong and the adults are talking...

Sensible aspirations. This is the principal route between M/c and Liverpool (there is only 1 fast tph from M/c Vic to Lpl on the only alternative surviving route via Chat Moss) and requires investment. All the stations need frequent regular stops (ideally every 30 minutes Mon-Sat daytime) and this can only be achieved by electric trains that can stop and start quickly, that don't get in the way of the fast services. Of the lines between M/c and Lpl, it should have been chosen first for electrification.

Comparison with the 1910 timetable on the CLC line is informative. There was an hourly fast train taking 45 minutes and calling at Warrington Central, and occasional non-stop trains taking 40 minutes. Speeds have not improved in over a century.

I sometimes wonder whether the enemies of Sir Edward Watkin still linger as ghosts in the national rail authorities, given the preference given over the years to promoting ex-LNW routes, other examples being the particular targetting of the GC main line by Beeching and closure of the Woodhead route.

 

[Chester1]

Sensible aspirations. This is the principal route between M/c and Liverpool (there is only 1 fast tph from M/c Vic to Lpl on the only alternative surviving route via Chat Moss) and requires investment. All the stations need frequent regular stops (ideally every 30 minutes Mon-Sat daytime) and this can only be achieved by electric trains that can stop and start quickly, that don't get in the way of the fast services. Of the lines between M/c and Lpl, it should have been chosen first for electrification.

It is not the main route. From next year the TPE service will switch to Chat Moss leaving the CLC with only one fast service per hour which will take 45 minutes vs 32-34 minutes. The introduction of the Chester/Ellesmere Port-Warrington Bank Quay-Victoria-Leeds service will reduce the importance of the line further. The lack of capacity through Castlefield will make it harder to improve Northern services on the CLC to componsate. It ideally needs 4tph in the long term but I can't imagine it will improve on the 2tph it is currently allocated. The best alternative would be for a Liverpool-Warrington Central all stops 2tph and a 2tph Liverpool-Warrington Central - Oxford Road service that just stops at South Parkway and then all stops east of Warrington Central.

 

[lejog]

It is not the main route. From next year the TPE service will switch to Chat Moss leaving the CLC with only one fast service per hour which will take 45 minutes vs 32-34 minutes. The introduction of the Chester/Ellesmere Port-Warrington Bank Quay-Victoria-Leeds service will reduce the importance of the line further.

Not to the mention the Northern Connect Chat Moss Liverpool-Calder Valley service due in 2019, calling at Huyton only between Liverpool and Victoria, so in total 3 ~30min services.

However the CLC line will still get 2 ~45min services with a Northern service to Manchester Airport replacing the TPE when it switches.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It's clear from this discussion that we can all see the problems that already exist, as well as anticipating more in the future, between Castlefield Jn and Piccadilly East Jn (not been known as London Road Jn for years). And it seems we also have our favoured solutions. But we only need to look 80 or so miles further south to see what is most likely to happen. I refer of course to Birmingham New Street and its even more crowded environs. Various ideas crop up from time to time for improving the New Street through-flow but in reality all that can genuinely be afforded is effectively make-do-and-mend. With the political promoters of the Northern Powerhouse having found other things to do with their lives I am increasingly skeptical that we will see anything more substantial than what has already been approved. Perhaps when both TfN and Rail North gain some teeth the political background will improve but sadly I think that is many years away still.

 

[Chester1]

Thats a very pessimistic outlook! New Street solutions all cost much more than Castlefield-Piccadilly and we will soon have an increase in capacity of 4tph. Victoria has been substantially improved recently too. There are three options for capacity improvements to the corridor and the most expensive costs £150m. Its not even clear that P15/16 is the best option or whether the benefits will be mostly offset by making the Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road issues worse.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Thats a very pessimistic outlook! New Street solutions all cost much more than Castlefield-Piccadilly and we will soon have an increase in capacity of 4tph. Victoria has been substantially improved recently too. There are three options for capacity improvements to the corridor and the most expensive costs £150m. Its not even clear that P15/16 is the best option or whether the benefits will be mostly offset by making the Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road issues worse.

Which all goes to show the difficulty in establishing value for money when spending public money: easiest/laziest solution for the Treasury is to keep kicking it into the long grass or let regional bodies somehow find the funds. It may well be that the best scheme would be the biggest ie grade separation at Ordsall Lane, replacement of Deansgate and Oxford Road stations with something rather bigger along Whitworth Street, Piccadilly 15/16, grade separation Wimbledon/Ilford style (of the Up Slow including elevated junction with the Up Styal) at Slade Lane and a burrowing junction for the Down Hope Valley at Edgeley. Still much cheaper than the suggestion in another thread to six-track Stockport to Piccadilly!

 

[Senex]

Which all goes to show the difficulty in establishing value for money when spending public money: easiest/laziest solution for the Treasury is to keep kicking it into the long grass or let regional bodies somehow find the funds. It may well be that the best scheme would be the biggest ie grade separation at Ordsall Lane, replacement of Deansgate and Oxford Road stations with something rather bigger along Whitworth Street, Piccadilly 15/16, grade separation Wimbledon/Ilford style (of the Up Slow including elevated junction with the Up Styal) at Slade Lane and a burrowing junction for the Down Hope Valley at Edgeley. Still much cheaper than the suggestion in another thread to six-track Stockport to Piccadilly!

And the British Treasury will always go for the "kicking it into the long grass" solution if it possibly can, given the short-termism so characteristic of this country (and certainly not only with respect to railways).

A flyover at Edgeley for the Down Buxton, now the Down Hope Valley, was proposed in the PicVic scheme and powers were obtained. And that of course bit the dust when Wilson's Westminster government refused to fund it.