Potential ways round the Castlefield problem

[geordieblue]

To those who say HS2 and conventional network trains can't mix

Appreciate this is a fantasy thread but who suggests that?

 

[GJMarshy]

Appreciate this is a fantasy thread but who suggests that?

I did say earlier that HS2 trains shouldn’t be running into the transpennine route. There’s definitely nothing wrong about running HS2 onto the northern WCML or ECML, but that route is one of the most congested, twisty mixed traffic railways in the country with no spare capacity.

 

[AndrewE]

Appreciate this is a fantasy thread but who suggests that?

In previous discussions about a single new through Manchester station it was claimed that it wouldn't work because Lpool-Newcastle trains wouldn't have the same profile as HS2. lt can be dealt with.

I did say earlier that HS2 trains shouldn’t be running into the transpennine route. There’s definitely nothing wrong about running HS2 onto the northern WCML or ECML, but that route is one of the most congested, twisty mixed traffic railways in the country with no spare capacity.

NPR/HS3 wouldn't be the old "congested, twisty mixed traffic railway," If there is any sensible infrastructure investment it will be an addition to the old lines.

 

[GJMarshy]

In previous discussions about a single new through Manchester station it was claimed that it wouldn't work because Lpool-Newcastle trains wouldn't have the same profile as HS2. lt can be dealt with.

NPR/HS3 wouldn't be the old "congested, twisty mixed traffic railway," If there is any sensible infrastructure investment it will be an addition to the old lines.

I’m going off the IRP which is the current plan. That’s a stub as far as Marsden, then on the existing transpennine route through Huddersfield from there.

 

[AndrewE]

I’m going off the IRP which is the current plan. That’s a stub as far as Marsden, then on the existing transpennine route through Huddersfield from there.

yes, and which is bonkers.

 

[CdBrux]

I’m going off the IRP which is the current plan. That’s a stub as far as Marsden, then on the existing transpennine route through Huddersfield from there.

It's onto the substantially upgraded route, thanks to TRU, to Dewsbury and then the existing route. I would guess Dewsbury to Leeds would be the constraining factor and then maybe Marsden to Huddersfield (which would be 3 tracks)

 

[PMN1]

Given the way Manchester and the railways developed was there any possibility of the Castlefield corridor being wider from the start?

 

[jfollows]

Given the way Manchester and the railways developed was there any possibility of the Castlefield corridor being wider from the start?

There was never any requirement.
In the 1970s, when I went to school in Manchester, there were 4 Altrincham trains an hour and one Liverpool train an hour between Oxford Road and Piccadilly. The Chester service and the Warrington stopper added to that between Deansgate (well, Cornbrook Junction actually) and Oxford Road. There were fewer freight trains because they could use the Fallowfield Loop or they used the Freightliner terminal at Longsight.
Before the 1970s, the Liverpool/Warrington traffic used Manchester Central so there was even less traffic.
Never a problem with two tracks. Would have been a waste of money then to do more.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

And how many of those airports are even physically capable of the simultaneous handling of multiple wide bodied airliners heading across the Atlantic or to the Middle East? Take away the through trains from across the north and most rail-using passengers will either drive or fly via other airports, most of which are not in the UK. So while those despised vested interests may appear to be rather parochial in their approach to the matter they are also, perhaps by accident, defending the interests of UK plc.

 

[AndrewE]

And how many of those airports are even physically capable of the simultaneous handling of multiple wide bodied airliners heading across the Atlantic or to the Middle East? Take away the through trains from across the north and most rail-using passengers will either drive or fly via other airports, most of which are not in the UK. So while those despised vested interests may appear to be rather parochial in their approach to the matter they are also, perhaps by accident, defending the interests of UK plc.

I don't think that is correct: Heathrow doesn't have through trains from anywhere - but it does have several dedicated metro-standard and frequency shuttles from another rail terminus and a city centre...
(Which is exactly what some posters here are recommending for Manchester Airport in order to stop trains from everywhere to it stitching up the rest of the network.)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't think that is correct: Heathrow doesn't have through trains from anywhere - but it does have several dedicated metro-standard and frequency shuttles from another rail terminus and a city centre...
(Which is exactly what some posters here are recommending for Manchester Airport in order to stop trains from everywhere to it stitching up the rest of the network.)

I'm not going to claim to understand absolutely everything here, but can someone please advise:

- looking at the line from Manchester to the airport, would there be capacity for that to run a metro-style service (so every 5 minutes/12 tph or greater) from one of the Manchester stations? For the moment, let's not worry about where the trains would go on to after getting back to Piccadilly or Victoria.
- if there can be a metro from Manchester to Airport, is there any way that services from <the rest of the north> can all serve the Manchester end of the Airport shuttle?

As said above, Heathrow (Britain's busiest airport and one of the busiest in the world) doesn't have direct rail links other than the Piccadilly and Elizabeth (and Heathrow Express?) lines to London (and now Kent). But it seems to do OK. So having to change train to get to the airport isn't of itself a showstopper. What might be a showstopper is an inconvenient connection - but a high frequency Airport shuttle could avoid that inconvenience.

So how does this affect Castlefield? By removing the need for services from west of Castlefield to the airport: surely if Castlefield needs to deal with less destinations, this may mean fewer trains through it - or at least a simpler service pattern to deal with?

 

[GJMarshy]

I'm not going to claim to understand absolutely everything here, but can someone please advise:

- looking at the line from Manchester to the airport, would there be capacity for that to run a metro-style service (so every 5 minutes/12 tph or greater) from one of the Manchester stations? For the moment, let's not worry about where the trains would go on to after getting back to Piccadilly or Victoria.
- if there can be a metro from Manchester to Airport, is there any way that services from <the rest of the north> can all serve the Manchester end of the Airport shuttle?

As said above, Heathrow (Britain's busiest airport and one of the busiest in the world) doesn't have direct rail links other than the Piccadilly and Elizabeth (and Heathrow Express?) lines to London (and now Kent). But it seems to do OK. So having to change train to get to the airport isn't of itself a showstopper. What might be a showstopper is an inconvenient connection - but a high frequency Airport shuttle could avoid that inconvenience.

So how does this affect Castlefield? By removing the need for services from west of Castlefield to the airport: surely if Castlefield needs to deal with less destinations, this may mean fewer trains through it - or at least a simpler service pattern to deal with?

I agree on all fronts. Having been in meetings with the city council and TfGM a few months ago and raising the question of if the airport needs so many direct services, the response was not positive to say the least. Anything that takes away direct airport connectivity or doesn’t supply it is a non-option as far as authorities are concerned.

Sad reality but politics rules.

 

[Krokodil]

looking at the line from Manchester to the airport, would there be capacity for that to run a metro-style service (so every 5 minutes/12 tph or greater)

Even assuming that it was self-contained (so you would have to give it exclusive use of the Slow Lines between Man Picc and Slade Lane Junction), that would still be pushing it with the existing signalling. With four aspect signalling on the Styal line you'd have a better shout.

If NPR happens then you would have the freedom to convert the route into an S-Bahn because the airport will still be served by TransPennine services on a new route so you wouldn't have the political opposition. Add in a chord at Warrington and the North Wales services can also run fast to Manchester (and beyond perhaps, Llandudno-Scarborough used to be a thing for example) on the new line. Chat Moss and the CLC line then become purely local lines served by the S-Bahn.

This leaves the question of the Manchester-Scotland and Manchester-Blackpool/Barrow/Windermere services. Does going via MIA and the HS2 Golborne link incur a time penalty compared with the existing route?

 

[The Planner]

I'm not going to claim to understand absolutely everything here, but can someone please advise:

- looking at the line from Manchester to the airport, would there be capacity for that to run a metro-style service (so every 5 minutes/12 tph or greater) from one of the Manchester stations? For the moment, let's not worry about where the trains would go on to after getting back to Piccadilly or Victoria.
- if there can be a metro from Manchester to Airport, is there any way that services from <the rest of the north> can all serve the Manchester end of the Airport shuttle?

In isolation from Slade Lane to the Airport, yes. You couldn't platform 12tph at the airport though, there isn't capacity, even with the planned enhancement which allows permissive working for two longer trains in a platform.

 

[Manutd1999]

A metro-frequency along the Styal line sounds great, but where do you send the ~4ph long-distance services instead? There is no space to terminate that many services at Victoria.

 

[adamedwards]

How feasible is a route parallel with the castlefield corridor alongside the A57(M) Mancunian Way? Yes there's lots of buildings which would be in the way, but is it cheaper to demolish these than build a tunnel? My crayoning is as follows:

• Flyover junction south of Piccadilly to separate trains.
• New Plaforms 15&16 at Picc but aligned over Travis St (yes theres a hotel in the way which has to be demolished or the building shortened)
• New viaduct south west diagonally over the A6
• New rail lines along the north side of the A57(M)
• Manchester Universities station at Oxford Road, to take pressure off the existing Manchester Oxford Road.
• Possible swap of lines to south side of A57(M) after this point as better alignment thereafter.
• New line crosses under the Warrington line (at A57 road level to avoid the double height railway bridge- this is the biggest constraint) and does not connect with it (as interchange is at Piccadilly).
• New junction with Chat Moss and Bolton Lines at Ordsall Lane.

• New Lines take the trains from Bolton and Chat Moss lines.
• Castlefield Line takes the trains from Warrington and Victoria via the Ordsall Curve.
• The west to south curve from Ordsall Lane to Deansgate is kept as an engineering/emergency line, but would not see any regular trains as these use the new lines.

Yes very disruptive and lots of issues with levels and blocking off of some roads to get the rail lines in. I have no idea how this trades off aginst tunnelling costs and demolition of buildings to create the entrances to any underground stations. Some of the 1960s buildings at Manchester Met may be in need of replacement anyway.

I'm sure there's something I've not allowed for not least the £ billions bill!

 

[AndrewE]

A metro-frequency along the Styal line sounds great, but where do you send the ~4ph long-distance services instead? There is no space to terminate that many services at Victoria.

I think the point is that if you have a high quality airport shuttle then you don't need to send the regional trains there, so you recast those services to do (e.g. at random,) Chester-Leeds, Liverpool - Sheffield, Southport - Stoke. Don't waste platform space terminating any trains! If we can't have a big new through main-line station - or even a small one - then Intercity trains (e.g. Scotland - Manc) need to terminate at stations with good onward connections.

Having seen what has been achieved at Antwerp (which puts even St Pancras to shame) I would have thought that a low-level airport departure platform could be fitted in at Piccadilly.

 

[Manutd1999]

Chester-Leeds and maybe even North Wales-Leeds/Bradford could be plausible, but you're still left with 1x Scotland and 1x Lake District service to find a route for.

And that's before you consider the likes of Blackpool, Liverpool etc, which don't really fit the definition of an airport shuttle either.....

Overall, I think we just need to accept that Castlefield will remain as a mixed-use railway until NPR is built. A compromise between long-distance and commuter services, with a sensible limit on capacity through the corridor, is the best we can do.

 

[GJMarshy]

Chester-Leeds and maybe even North Wales-Leeds/Bradford could be plausible, but you're still left with 1x Scotland and 1x Lake District service to find a route for.

And that's before you consider the likes of Blackpool, Liverpool etc, which don't really fit the definition of an airport shuttle either.....

Overall, I think we just need to accept that Castlefield will remain as a mixed-use railway until NPR is built. A compromise between long-distance and commuter services, with a sensible limit on capacity through the corridor, is the best we can do.

You’re right if it’s followed through. NPR is basically something that is still a thing because of the “official line” but really it was binned a long time ago. At least using HS2 or even in the IRP. Everyone wanted it to do everything and serve everywhere regardless of geography or operational factors, which really has seen it fail.

Still hope though if leaders are prepared to scale-back ambitions a bit into smaller, phaseable infrastructure investments. It’s going to take someone to put their head above the parapet finally. I’m hoping Burnham will do that, since he’s quite outspoken on most things, and has made his frustration with the lack of progress on NPR very clear.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In isolation from Slade Lane to the Airport, yes. You couldn't platform 12tph at the airport though, there isn't capacity, even with the planned enhancement which allows permissive working for two longer trains in a platform.

So it looks as if 12 tph isn’t feasible. But if I’ve managed to read the National Rail site correctly, the route currently manages 8tph from Airport to town - but with uneven service intervals (I think I spotted a gap of 15 minutes: based on looking at a weekday from around 1625 - 1725). Could this be evened out to give a maximum gap of perhaps 10 minutes? Would this be enough to attract passengers to use a town - Airport shuttle?

 

[Bantamzen]

So it looks as if 12 tph isn’t feasible. But if I’ve managed to read the National Rail site correctly, the route currently manages 8tph from Airport to town - but with uneven service intervals (I think I spotted a gap of 15 minutes: based on looking at a weekday from around 1625 - 1725). Could this be evened out to give a maximum gap of perhaps 10 minutes? Would this be enough to attract passengers to use a town - Airport shuttle?

It's not just a case of how often, but also a case of how do you get passengers to it. A Piccadilly-Airport shuttle would mean people arriving at Victoria would have to make their own way across Manchester to get to it. A Victoria-Piccadilly-Airport shuttle would simply take up more Castlefield paths, and need to extend beyond becoming something other than a shuttle. Either way you get more congestion with more suitcase laden passengers cramming onto Metrolink or ramming increasingly onto P13/14 at Piccadilly. And given that Manchester Airport are in the middle of a massive expansion plan which could see them double passengers, making the journey by rail harder is probably not the greatest idea.

So until / if Greater Manchester fill in the Metrolink gaps that could soak up a lot of passengers currently using heavy rail, then the TOCs and NR need to smarten their game. For a start, crew changes should maybe be avoided. Yes this will complicate things for TOCs but there needs to be some thought about how this might be changed. Also do long distance services towrads the airport really need to call at Oxford Road? Could they be run around stoppers when at the platforms? I've been on a couple of services that waited west of Oxford Road for a unit on P4 to clear even though P3 was unoccupied, so do options exist there? Could the CLC services continue through rather than terminate at Oxford Road, perhaps replacing other Liverpool-Airport services. All just food for thought.

 

[daodao]

It's not just a case of how often, but also a case of how do you get passengers to it. A Piccadilly-Airport shuttle would mean people arriving at Victoria would have to make their own way across Manchester to get to it.

The only passengers particularly inconvenienced by the lack of any direct Victoria-Airport heavy rail trains (there is a direct Metrolink service) would be those from the Rochdale direction.

Standedge line passengers can change at Piccadilly for Manchester Airport.

Chester and North Wales passengers can change at Crewe for Manchester Airport.

Passengers from Liverpool along the Chat Moss line could retain a direct emu service to Manchester Airport, as could passengers from Blackpool/Preston/Bolton, enabling:

• Passengers from the northern part of the WCML to change at Preston
• Passengers from the Southport/Wigan/Blackburn/Clitheroe lines to change at Bolton or Salford Crescent as appropriate

 

[SJL2020]

It's not just a case of how often, but also a case of how do you get passengers to it. A Piccadilly-Airport shuttle would mean people arriving at Victoria would have to make their own way across Manchester to get to it. A Victoria-Piccadilly-Airport shuttle would simply take up more Castlefield paths, and need to extend beyond becoming something other than a shuttle. Either way you get more congestion with more suitcase laden passengers cramming onto Metrolink or ramming increasingly onto P13/14 at Piccadilly. And given that Manchester Airport are in the middle of a massive expansion plan which could see them double passengers, making the journey by rail harder is probably not the greatest idea.

So until / if Greater Manchester fill in the Metrolink gaps that could soak up a lot of passengers currently using heavy rail, then the TOCs and NR need to smarten their game. For a start, crew changes should maybe be avoided. Yes this will complicate things for TOCs but there needs to be some thought about how this might be changed. Also do long distance services towrads the airport really need to call at Oxford Road? Could they be run around stoppers when at the platforms? I've been on a couple of services that waited west of Oxford Road for a unit on P4 to clear even though P3 was unoccupied, so do options exist there? Could the CLC services continue through rather than terminate at Oxford Road, perhaps replacing other Liverpool-Airport services. All just food for thought.

It's not just - or even mainly - about passengers.

The Manchester Airport area is a hub for major commercial development of sub-regional/regional importance, with something like 500,000 sqm of commercial premises (and excluding logistics) in the pipeline on top of what is already there.

When that is built out that is a lot of extra journeys to work on top of the 30,000 or so people who already work at the airport and the existing business parks and other developments around it.

This is the main reason why authorities outside of Manchester are keen to retain current levels of access to the airport and to even expand it further. It's an engine of growth and opportunity for the North West as a whole, with its influence extending into parts of adjacent regions including Yorkshire and (north) Wales.

 

[Bantamzen]

The only passengers particularly inconvenienced by the lack of any direct Victoria-Airport heavy rail trains (there is a direct Metrolink service) would be those from the Rochdale direction.

Standedge line passengers can change at Piccadilly for Manchester Airport.

Chester and North Wales passengers can change at Crewe for Manchester Airport.

Passengers from Liverpool along the Chat Moss line could retain a direct emu service to Manchester Airport, as could passengers from Blackpool/Preston/Bolton, enabling:

• Passengers from the northern part of the WCML to change at Preston
• Passengers from the Southport/Wigan/Blackburn/Clitheroe lines to change at Bolton or Salford Crescent as appropriate

As I say, the Metrolink should Manchester's primary commuter mover, that is after all it's purpose. Fill in it's gaps and you don't need to ask longer distance passengers to change.

 

[AndrewE]

As I say, the Metrolink should Manchester's primary commuter mover, that is after all it's purpose. Fill in it's gaps and you don't need to ask longer distance passengers to change.

No. Trams are good up to certain passenger flows (if they can be helped through congested areas) but above that traffic density you have to go to a mode segregated from the street. It's why continental cities have pre-Metros: tram tunnels intended to become part of real metros as traffic and speeds increase further. I wouldn't like to see many people with holiday luggage on a cross-city tram, which is probably pretty busy anyway, even if they were prepared to go for such a slow way to the airport.
For the principal means of access to the airport you need something better than an all-stops tram too.
I would look at running the airport shuttle fed off a Picc-Vic tunnel, trains could even eventually run out to Bury again! (Which sounds like the start of an RER...)

It's not just - or even mainly - about passengers.

The Manchester Airport area is a hub for major commercial development of sub-regional/regional importance, with something like 500,000 sqm of commercial premises (and excluding logistics) in the pipeline on top of what is already there.

When that is built out that is a lot of extra journeys to work on top of the 30,000 or so people who already work at the airport and the existing business parks and other developments around it.

This is the main reason why authorities outside of Manchester are keen to retain current levels of access to the airport and to even expand it further. It's an engine of growth and opportunity for the North West as a whole, with its influence extending into parts of adjacent regions including Yorkshire and (north) Wales.

Why can't workers can't use the airport shuttle like anyone else?

 

[The Planner]

So it looks as if 12 tph isn’t feasible. But if I’ve managed to read the National Rail site correctly, the route currently manages 8tph from Airport to town - but with uneven service intervals (I think I spotted a gap of 15 minutes: based on looking at a weekday from around 1625 - 1725). Could this be evened out to give a maximum gap of perhaps 10 minutes? Would this be enough to attract passengers to use a town - Airport shuttle?

Still need gaps for freight to/from Trafford Park etc

 

[AndrewE]

Still need gaps for freight to/from Trafford Park etc

Put the shuttle in the undercroft.
People need to see Antwerp for a superb example of how to expand an old station while retaining its character.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where are people proposing that the other Castlefield services should reverse if they don't go to the airport? It's effectively a reversing siding, existing as much for operational convenience as passenger demand.

 

[Bantamzen]

No. Trams are good up to certain passenger flows (if they can be helped through congested areas) but above that traffic density you have to go to a mode segregated from the street. It's why continental cities have pre-Metros: tram tunnels intended to become part of real metros as traffic and speeds increase further. I wouldn't like to see many people with holiday luggage on a cross-city tram, which is probably pretty busy anyway, even if they were prepared to go for such a slow way to the airport.
For the principal means of access to the airport you need something better than an all-stops tram too.
I would look at running the airport shuttle fed off a Picc-Vic tunnel, trains could even eventually run out to Bury again! (Which sounds like the start of an RER...)

Why can't workers can't use the airport shuttle like anyone else?

So now we are building a tunnel for an airport shuttle? Is this as well as a tunnel for NPR? Because if not, and I'm going out on a limb here, I suspect funding might be a bit difficult. And as NPR is gathering dust on shelf, in a basement, behind a locked door, with a sign saying "beware of the alligators", no one should be holding their breath for a NPR bore to be tunnelled in the next few decades.

And if NPR doesn't happen, you can't use the existing heavy radio network for a Manc-Bahn, and so it is far better to expand the existing tram network to fill the gaps, get more commuters out of their cars and travelling by tram into the centre. Throw in some more interchanges with the two east-west rail alignments and you have a potential solution that could actually happen. If Greater Manchester doesn't want to expand their tram network, chuck the money over the Pennines. West Yorkshire will snatch your hand off for a tram network....

 

[AndrewE]

So now we are building a tunnel for an airport shuttle? Is this as well as a tunnel for NPR? Because if not, and I'm going out on a limb here, I suspect funding might be a bit difficult. And as NPR is gathering dust on shelf, in a basement, behind a locked door, with a sign saying "beware of the alligators", no one should be holding their breath for a NPR bore to be tunnelled in the next few decades.

The undercroft was at ground level the last time I was there, so that wouldn't need tunnelling... but Fairfield St seems quite important and busy, I don't know whether the traffic could be diverted away to allow the approach at ground level.
Obviously a tunnelled Picc-Vic line would be a massively bigger undertaking, but it would maintain connectivity with the heavy rail regional services being diverted to Victoria.

And if NPR doesn't happen, you can't use the existing heavy radio network for a Manc-Bahn, and so it is far better to expand the existing tram network to fill the gaps, get more commuters out of their cars and travelling by tram into the centre. Throw in some more interchanges with the two east-west rail alignments and you have a potential solution that could actually happen.

Interchanges would be good. My experience is of the trams being overcrowded and relatively slow, so letting people from outlying areas get off trams for a fast train into the city centre would be an improvement. I got the impression though that many more trams on the streets in the middle would start to choke up the city again. Bring back double-deckers!