Potential ways round the Castlefield problem

[Austriantrain]

Fast trains form Liverpool Lime Street maybe, but are you suggesting that Newton-le-Willows, Patricroft and Eccles stations should close and that there would be no passenger trains from Chester via Warrington Bank Quay?

It was not my suggestion (but one from the poster I replied to).

I understood it to mean that all those services would travel to Pic via the then quadrupled Castlefield corridor (which, again, was proposed by the previous poster).

 

[GJMarshy]

The surface network really isn’t kitted out for Intercity trains. Neither Castlefield nor Victoria. Both will run much more efficiently as an S-Bahn style network as previous posters have outlined.

The long distance intercity trains simply don’t belong on either corridor. They need their own route. This could be “NPR/HS3” or a smaller-scale 2.5mi (ish) tunnel connecting TRU to an upgraded Chat Moss via Piccadilly and Salford (reducing the need to route all feeder trains to Piccadilly)

I’ve looked time and time again for low hanging fruit, but trying to upgrade Castlefield into a competent mixed-traffic main line is just throwing good money after bad. It needs doing properly, splitting the service types out, locking corridors and linearising routes for efficiency.

Intercity/freight is the problem. We need to hammer down on re-routing those rather than tinkering around the edges.

Marshy.

 

[Austriantrain]

The surface network really isn’t kitted out for Intercity trains. Neither Castlefield nor Victoria. Both will run much more efficiently as an S-Bahn style network as previous posters have outlined.

The long distance intercity trains simply don’t belong on either corridor. They need their own route. This could be “NPR/HS3” or a smaller-scale 2.5mi (ish) tunnel connecting TRU to an upgraded Chat Moss via Piccadilly and Salford (reducing the need to route all feeder trains to Piccadilly)

I’ve looked time and time again for low hanging fruit, but trying to upgrade Castlefield into a competent mixed-traffic main line is just throwing good money after bad. It needs doing properly, splitting the service types out, locking corridors and linearising routes for efficiency.

Intercity/freight is the problem. We need to hammer down on re-routing those rather than tinkering around the edges.

Marshy.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t agree.

If NPR gets built as currently planned, the only flows out of Castlefield towards the West that I would see as real long-distance that would remain there are those from Manchester to Scotland. Even if at some point, these run half-hourly, they are not nearly enough to justify a new line through Manchester.

It’s primarily regional flows (including longer-distance regional, it is true) that in an ideal world need more capacity and better connectivity.

Of course, that would be different if NPR got redefined (Manchester - Liverpool somewhere along Chat Moss or CLC instead of via the airport), but even then, there would simply be no reason to limit any new cross-Manchester line to long-distance only (and if it got tunneled in a fantasy world, freight would surely remain on the surface lines).

 

[GJMarshy]

I take your point since if you imagine all TPE etc services transfer to “HS3” that would in theory free up a lot of space on Castlefield and at Victoria.

That said, it’s highly unlikely the TPE services on existing lines would be taken away, since politically that’s very difficult to do. They basically become standard “semi-fast” services, with the centre-centre traffic transferring to HS3.

It’s here where it begins to make sense to try and get the best value out of one piece of future infrastructure as possible. With HS3, you still need such a cross-city tunnel to relieve Castlefield (not to mention the increased demand to feed Piccadilly). You’re more than likely going to need an underground station at Piccadilly to actually run NPR trains onto HS2 reliably. That station will need to be 450m in length to fit HS2 trains, with 6 platforms so HS2 trains can terminate. (Alternatively a turnback under the city centre) Both options are extremely costly and have been balked at by both the DfT and treasury. (Not that there’s any change there!)

So if instead, you start by upgrading chat moss (partial 4-tracking) and connecting it to TRU & Piccadilly via a relatively short tunnel, you can run both long-distance intercity and semi-fast (TPE/EMR) services through it. You’d get 10-12tph.

Then Castlefield and the tracks through Victoria can be ran exclusively by TfGM metro-style or “S-Bahn” services.

We need to start looking three steps ahead and seeing the bigger picture.

 

[cle]

I agree that the TPE needs to be seen and treated regionally and S-bahn like. Yes some may run on to Newcastle - but for every one Manchester-Newcastle passenger, there are probably 20 for Liverpool, Huddersfield and Leeds each. And these journeys will be 25-45 mins. That is short. So they don't really need to be considered as long distance, even if at the extremities, they're running fast on the ECML.

I do think Victoria should be handling all services from Chat Moss, Liverpool and Chester. Wigan/WCML also, if anything remains fast on that route.

 

[Krokodil]

That said, it’s highly unlikely the TPE services on existing lines would be taken away, since politically that’s very difficult to do. They basically become standard “semi-fast” services, with the centre-centre traffic transferring to HS3.

Once the intercity traffic has transferred to HS3, the centre-centre timings are no longer as important, so they can just replace the former TPE services with stoppers.

 

[HSTEd]

Then you‘ll just add more major works to the south of Piccadilly, where you would need a 6 to 8-track approach and grade separation.

The terrain south of Piccadilly is far less constrained than that in the corridor itself though.
So if the grade separation has to go anywhere, better it be there.

Provided NPR gets built in full, you might get away with not running trains from Chat Moss to Victoria anymore. The Bolton line would still need access to Pic and Vic though.

I don't see why all Liverpool-Leeds trains could not run via Castlefield if the corridor has sufficient capacity, which is the point of my proposal.
Along with everything else in the Manchester area.

The result would remain the same: enormous amounts of money for no commensurate benefit, in my opinion.

It would enable all trains in the Manchester area to serve Piccadilly, with the major associated connectivity benefits for the entirety of the north of england.
What value you place on such things is obviously difficult to calculate though/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2023 ==

Fast trains form Liverpool Lime Street maybe, but are you suggesting that Newton-le-Willows, Patricroft and Eccles stations should close and that there would be no passenger trains from Chester via Warrington Bank Quay?

A four track Castlefield corridor would be able to absorb all of those trains though, surely?

 

[daodao]

The terrain south of Piccadilly is far less constrained than that in the corridor itself though.
So if the grade separation has to go anywhere, better it be there.


I don't see why all Liverpool-Leeds trains could not run via Castlefield if the corridor has sufficient capacity, which is the point of my proposal.
Along with everything else in the Manchester area.


It would enable all trains in the Manchester area to serve Piccadilly, with the major associated connectivity benefits for the entirety of the north of england.
What value you place on such things is obviously difficult to calculate though/

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2023 ==


A four track Castlefield corridor would be able to absorb all of those trains though, surely?

The solution to the Castlefield problem is to remove as many services as possible from it and to make more use of the 4 tracks through Victoria. The concept of quadruple tracking the Castlefield line is for luftmenschen who dream of building castles in the air.

 

[andreading]

Just a question so I don't get told off.
Would it make sense to have a western interchange station at Oldfield Rd with 4 platforms west of the western part of Ordsall Lane Junction and 4 track throughout to the eastern junction so trains from Salford Crescent carry on to Victoria on segregated track but with an interchange for services to Piccadilly.
It looks like land is available and is cheap and still allows for any of the current permutations.

I am not of the industry so please treat with kid gloves

 

[cle]

The solution to the Castlefield problem is to remove as many services as possible from it and to make more use of the 4 tracks through Victoria. The concept of quadruple tracking the Castlefield line is for luftmenschen who dream of building castles in the air.

100% agree. Four tracking Castlefield is never going to happen.

The incremental approach to using what we have and planning for investment there (Victoria pairs, Victoria bay, potential Salford Central revisit inc a bay/addl platform, Salford Crescent p3, Oxford Road rationalization, pairing services by directions and traction, firmer on Picc/Vic double-dipping) - much of which is beginning and out there - is likely the best we can do.

 

[GJMarshy]

Just a question so I don't get told off.
Would it make sense to have a western interchange station at Oldfield Rd with 4 platforms west of the western part of Ordsall Lane Junction and 4 track throughout to the eastern junction so trains from Salford Crescent carry on to Victoria on segregated track but with an interchange for services to Piccadilly.
It looks like land is available and is cheap and still allows for any of the current permutations.

I am not of the industry so please treat with kid gloves

You’re not the first to suggest such a station! It would nicely provide a place for people from north Manchester to join services from Piccadilly along Chat Moss (toward Liverpool) without the need to route them down Castlefield to feed Piccadilly. So yes, makes a whole lot of sense! In fact:

We suggested it as part of the CrossNorth plan (now one option studied under a think tank/research group “NorthOnTrack”)

 

[daodao]

firmer on Picc/Vic double-dipping

Thank you for agreeing with me. Closure of the Ordsall Chord to regular passenger trains is highly desirable. There is no need for any heavy rail trains to serve both of Manchester's principal stations and pass through several more, thus adding to the congestion on the Castlefield line.

 

[cle]

London sees the same with Charing Cross/Cannon St and Victoria/London Bridge. Not to mention the lunacy of the Sutton loop/bays and the Rainham service. Be strict, and compensate people with frequency and with reliability. Also, people can and should walk more at the destination.

 

[Manutd1999]

Also, people can and should walk more at the destination.

This

Victoria to Castlefield is a 20 minute walk. There are trams and buses if it is raining / you are lazy. We need to get away from this "everywhere must have access to Castlefield" mentality.

 

[GJMarshy]

This

Victoria to Castlefield is a 20 minute walk. There are trams and buses if it is raining / you are lazy. We need to get away from this "everywhere must have access to Castlefield" mentality.

It’s not so much “access to Castlefield” as “access to Piccadilly”

In London and the southeast where population density is higher, metro frequency services are common on the national rail network, even into termini. In Greater Manchester and its hinterlands density is much lower, which cannot in many places justify more frequent services than about 3tph (Every 20mins) Metrolink only has capacity for 5th between Piccadilly and Victoria. (Every 12mins)

If in a scenario where we split the network again:

Say you’re a passenger from South Manchester (We’ll use Marple) and you wanted to go toward Liverpool that will make getting your connection reasonably timed very difficult and stressful with a journey time of roughly 1h 30.

It’s not like in London where there are trains every 20mins and tubes every 2mins connecting stations.You’re not going to get people out of their cars and onto rail if it takes 50mins longer on the train, with a lot more faff!

 

[Bletchleyite]

This

Victoria to Castlefield is a 20 minute walk. There are trams and buses if it is raining / you are lazy. We need to get away from this "everywhere must have access to Castlefield" mentality.

20 minutes on your journey to work at the uni, with the hourly services the north typically has, means getting up an hour earlier - or driving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

It’s not so much “access to Castlefield” as “access to Piccadilly”

Oxford Road is very significant. The universities together are one of the biggest destinations in the city.

 

[Chester1]

Thank you for agreeing with me. Closure of the Ordsall Chord to regular passenger trains is highly desirable. There is no need for any heavy rail trains to serve both of Manchester's principal stations and pass through several more, thus adding to the congestion on the Castlefield line.

Its not necessary for journeys to Manchester city centre but it is necessary for Yorkshire and the North East to have a service to Manchester Airport. The chord freed up 3tph of capacity into Manchester Piccadilly platforms 1-12 by stopping a service having to cross the station throat. Perhaps that isn't worth the hassle but it was the rationale for building the chord, with wider choice of city centre airports being an added bonus.

 

[daodao]

It is necessary for Yorkshire and the North East to have a service to Manchester Airport.

Why? Rail capacity around Manchester city centre is sparse and needs to be used wisely; there is no money for major infrastructure improvements. Passengers from Yorkshire who wish to travel to Manchester Airport can change at Piccadilly.

 

[Chester1]

Why? Rail capacity around Manchester city centre is sparse and needs to be used wisely; there is no money for major infrastructure improvements. Passengers from Yorkshire who wish to travel to Manchester Airport can change at Piccadilly.

That is a reasonable solution to the problem. I was highlighting that there is a trade off to stopping using the chord that you hadn't mentioned i.e. no service to the Airport for Yorkshire and North East. The third option of reversing across the station throat again would mean cancelling 3tph into Piccadilly which is highly unlikely to be tolerated.

 

[Krokodil]

Its not necessary for journeys to Manchester city centre but it is necessary for Yorkshire and the North East to have a service to Manchester Airport. The chord freed up 3tph of capacity into Manchester Piccadilly platforms 1-12 by stopping a service having to cross the station throat. Perhaps that isn't worth the hassle but it was the rationale for building the chord, with wider choice of city centre airports being an added bonus.

Tell that to the people of Sheffield

 

[Chester1]

Tell that to the people of Sheffield

The end of Sheffield services to the airport was much later than the Ordsall Chord change in May 2018. By Yorkshire I mean services coming from Leeds. The South TPE airport service caused some pathing issues but fewer than North TPE which had to cross the whole station throat, not part of it. The business for building the Ordsall Chord was in large part based on freeing up paths into platforms 1-12 by diverting the North TPE service to platforms 13 and 14.

 

[GJMarshy]

Direct services to the airport from seemingly everywhere aren’t necessary if it only requires one connection. If as previous posters have mooted, we send all east-west trains via Victoria, you’re going to need frequent connections to the Airport. With the Chord, in theory you could lock it (and Castlefield) to the densely populated Styal Line toward the airport and create a metro-frequency service.

That’s going to require leaders to make the politically very difficult decision to take away other city’s direct airport connections. I’m not arguing that’s a bad idea, it might well help. Simply pointing out its very unlikely since any taking services away will be viewed as “levelling-down” so even a Labour administration wouldn’t even consider it, even if *practically* it makes more sense.

 

[LittleAH]

Tell that to the people of Sheffield

That service also caused a conflict and hasn’t been operational since March 2020

 

[Krokodil]

The end of Sheffield services to the airport was much later than the Ordsall Chord change in May 2018. By Yorkshire I mean services coming from Leeds. The South TPE airport service caused some pathing issues but fewer than North TPE which had to cross the whole station throat, not part of it. The business for building the Ordsall Chord was in large part based on freeing up paths into platforms 1-12 by diverting the North TPE service to platforms 13 and 14.

That service also caused a conflict and hasn’t been operational since March 2020

Yes, which is my point. Despite the statement that it's essential to keep places connected to the airport, the connection from Sheffield was withdrawn as part of the Castlefield Taskforce. At one point there was a debate as to what would happen to the Welsh services - maintain them as they were (this option was eventually chosen, with the loss of a couple of peak extras), divert via the Mid-Cheshire and terminate in the main station, or divert to Victoria. Local politicians weren't happy about the idea of losing a direct service to the airport. Personally I don't think that a direct service is that important (if you're going to Heathrow you've got to change for example) but clearly it gets the politicians worked-up.

 

[Basil Jet]

IMO

1. Move the long distance services elsewhere, and turn it into something a lot more like Merseyrail, the Lizzie or Thameslink, as indeed it basically was up until the 1990s.

Indeed. I think Wilmslow/Airport to Victoria / Warrington Central should be pretty much segregated, with maybe trains every five minutes from Victoria to Airport and an extra 6tph from the Warrington line to the Styal line, not necessarily going all the way. I think it might need a little widening north of Levenshulme and west of Victoria, but no demolition. No other trains would pass form the north side to the south side, with people changing at Victoria or Salford Central as required. I think this is a very cheap way of dramatically increasing capacity!

Freight is a bit neither here nor there as there isn't much of it - one or two paths an hour maybe? (checks Realtime Trains - it's about that).

I suppose a freight train an hour could fit through as well.

 

[daodao]

It is not possible for Southport to lose direct services to Castlefield

It is entrenched irrational views such as this, and the obsession with running trains to Manchester Airport from far-flung places some of which have their own airports, that makes it difficult to implement an effective solution to the Castlefield problem, due to lobbying by vested interests outwith Greater Manchester.

 

[Bantamzen]

The surface network really isn’t kitted out for Intercity trains. Neither Castlefield nor Victoria. Both will run much more efficiently as an S-Bahn style network as previous posters have outlined.

The long distance intercity trains simply don’t belong on either corridor. They need their own route. This could be “NPR/HS3” or a smaller-scale 2.5mi (ish) tunnel connecting TRU to an upgraded Chat Moss via Piccadilly and Salford (reducing the need to route all feeder trains to Piccadilly)

I’ve looked time and time again for low hanging fruit, but trying to upgrade Castlefield into a competent mixed-traffic main line is just throwing good money after bad. It needs doing properly, splitting the service types out, locking corridors and linearising routes for efficiency.

Intercity/freight is the problem. We need to hammer down on re-routing those rather than tinkering around the edges.

Marshy.

Manchester already has a high density transit system, but as I suggested earlier it has some very notable gaps. A North-South route coming through Salford and serving Salford Central, then through central Manchester, Oxford Road, University and beyond would go a long way to solving a lot of the problems. This would provide new interchange opportunities from heavy rail to Metrolink away from Castlefield. This would then mean north west stoppers could mainly be provisioned through Victoria towards Rochdale and Stalybridge, leaving sufficient capacity on Castlefield to have intercity & airport services as well as services from Warrington and Liverpool running as needed.

A Manc-Bahn might be desirable to some, but you can't design it without having a very expensive and challenging new alignment under Manchester. And frankly why spend all that money, which would easily run into billions, perhaps tens of billions given that you'd new an entire intercity station down there as well as the bores, when you have a surface solution staring you in the face. Get the gaps in Metrolink coverage closed, with new interchanges with heavy rail on both main alignments and you've given Manchester a massive capacity boost as well as solve a fair few problems in the south of the city.

 

[tigerroar]

Double decker line. If they want to double the capacity, why not on top instead of alongside?

 

[GJMarshy]

Double decker line. If they want to double the capacity, why not on top instead of alongside?

Because the disruption and construction cost would be much more than that even a tunnelled alternative. You’d need to close it for potentially over a year, construct a grade separated junction (somewhere near Piccadilly and Ordsall, where’s the space?) Then you’ll need to double deck two-three stations on the route. The cost would be astronomical far beyond even Crossrail levels!

The best solution is one that is both practical, simple and one that meets a compromise of political and operational goals.

 

[AndrewE]

I think the best answer would come from joined-up thinking and a preparedness to invest in the infrastructure in the provinces. Neither of which is really likely with the present twits in Westminster.

Joined up thinking: combine HS2 and NPR, forget HS2 as an airline on wheels and make (London?)-Brum-Manc-Leeds(-Newcastle?) into a modern replacement for XC - which just can't cope with the current demands on it. Give us the inter-regional connectivity that other countries have or are building.

Invest in the provinces (!): abandon the eastern HS2 approach to Piccadilly, make a through underground station somewhere handy for Picc and serve Leeds via a Pennine base tunnel. Alternate Liverpool and Brum trains on the axis and serve more eastern destinations too. Makes space for local trains on the surface lines.

To those who say HS2 and conventional network trains can't mix, yes they can, it has been done before: you have sort-of gauntletted lines through each platform with the wider trains on the outer track.

Tunnelling under Manchester would be a challenge though, there are quite shallow mine workings not far east of Piccadilly, so the designers and engineers would warn their money going through that area! I bet it would still be cheaper and easier than the Elizabeth line has turneed out to be...