Potential ways round the Castlefield problem

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.)

The problem is that people in the north are much less likely than their southern counterparts to even consider public transport as an option for almost any journey. Therefore if they are to be persuaded to avoid adding to the congestion on the regional motorway network and causing ever more fields to be converted into airport car parks they need to have the through train option available. That's just how things are. Comparing Manchester with Heathrow has to consider the expectations of passengers: in London & South-East train frequencies generally are higher meaning the prospect of having to change trains is less intimidating. Spend London style money on public transport in the north for about 30 years or so and attitudes would change. Until then we're pretty well stuck with making compromises like Castlefield being a mixed traffic corridor.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

My point is that a tunnel for a shuttle simply would never be funded unless part of something bigger.

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!

The tram network goes deeper into the city centre than the rail network though, so I'm not sure how that works. My idea about more mainline interchanges was to get people off the main lines and onto trams for their final journey to the centre. And as far as trams choking up the streets, isn't it cars and buses choking them up? More trams could reduce them further, with the bus network feeding the tram network further out in the suburbs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if NPR doesn't happen, you can't use the existing heavy radio network for a Manc-Bahn

Well, you still could with some service changes - Germany's S-Bahnen aren't all fully-segregated like Merseyrail, far more of them are on shared rights of way with half hourly services at the extremities - sounding familiar at all?

An example pattern that would work:
2tph Wigan NW-Bolton-Castlefield-Airport (331 or 323)
2tph Blackpool N-Bolton-Castlefield-Airport (331 or 323)
1tph Cumbria-Bolton-Castlefield-Airport (195)*
4tph Liverpool-Warrington (corrected)-Castlefield, 2 terminating Oxford Road, 2 continuing to the Airport. 2 of them fast west of Warrington and 2 fast east of it, so Warrington retains 2tph fast to both Manchester and Liverpool with improved punctuality due to less knock-on delay (195)
2tph Stalybridge-Ordsall-Castlefield-Airport (195, but switching to 331 or 323 when electrified)
One freight path per hour

11tph total (12 with the freight). Merseyrail manages 12 on its core section without any significant problems, including reversals.

4 each way to call at all stations on the Airport line, plus any others that would be messed up if they didn't due to being too close to the ones that do call, at as close to perfect 15 minute clockface as possible.

Any train arriving significantly delayed at Picc to terminate there using the reversing siding so as not to mess things up.

All to call Deansgate, Oxford Road and Picc. It could be argued to send a random pair (both from the same origin) all stations to Stockport or even Hazel Grove as pathing permits.

Crew changes on Castlefield strictly prohibited.

Liverpool-Norwich and Sheffields to be truncated to Picc main trainshed, Southport to run 2tph to Stalybridge via Atherton (195), Headbolt Lane a shuttle with a serious move towards it being Merseyrail-ed (whatever 15x can be found spare), Scottish service to terminate at Victoria. TfW to Victoria or via the Mid Cheshire line to the main trainshed. TPE to cease serving the Airport.

This is rather close to being the proposed Option C, I think?

* Debatably this could terminate at Victoria, but it is generally considered part of the Preston-Bolton-Manchester corridor core service so this split may not be desirable. If it reverted to running via Chat Moss then definitely could be sent to Vic.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

4tph Liverpool-Wigan-Castlefield, 2 terminating Oxford Road, 2 continuing to the Airport. 2 of them fast west of Warrington and 2 fast east of it, so Warrington retains 2tph fast to both Manchester and Liverpool with improved punctuality due to less knock-on delay (195)

I assume you meant Liverpool-Warrington-Castlefield there (especially since you did mention Warrington later in but some people will probably only read the first bit)? I don't know how reasonable turning 8tph at Wigan even is (and finding the WCML paths for it).

 

[PTR 444]

Could combining the Blackpool and Cumbria trains with portions splitting at Preston work? That would reduce the total number of trains through Castlefield. You could then have:

2tph Crewe/Airport - Liverpool (alternating via CLC and Chat Moss)
2tph Airport - Blackpool/Cumbria (splits at Preston, 1tph to Barrow, 1tph to Windermere)
2tph Airport - Southport
2tph Airport - Leeds/North East

The Scotland train would run to Manchester Victoria via Wigan and Chat Moss.

 

[daodao]

Could combining the Blackpool and Cumbria trains with portions splitting at Preston work? That would reduce the total number of trains through Castlefield. You could then have:

2tph Crewe/Airport - Liverpool (alternating via CLC and Chat Moss)
2tph Airport - Blackpool/Cumbria (splits at Preston, 1tph to Barrow, 1tph to Windermere)
2tph Airport - Southport
2tph Airport - Leeds/North East

The Scotland train would run to Manchester Victoria via Wigan and Chat Moss.

That mixes services from electrified and non-electrified routes and includes services to the Airport from too far afield, creating reliability issues.

The proposals from @Bletchleyite above are much more appropriate in principle.

There is no need to run trains from Manchester Airport to Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or North-East England.

 

[PTR 444]

There is no need to run trains from Manchester Airport to Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or North-East England.

Try telling that to the residents of Lancaster, Carlisle, Barrow, Windermere, Chester, Llandudno, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle!

Disclaimer: I do support a slimmed down service to the airport if it improves overall reliability, but I doubt it will go down well with stakeholders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume you meant Liverpool-Warrington-Castlefield there (especially since you did mention Warrington later in but some people will probably only read the first bit)? I don't know how reasonable turning 8tph at Wigan even is (and finding the WCML paths for it).

I did indeed mean Warrington - typo corrected!

 

[Bantamzen]

That mixes services from electrified and non-electrified routes and includes services to the Airport from too far afield, creating reliability issues.

The proposals from @Bletchleyite above are much more appropriate in principle.

There is no need to run trains from Manchester Airport to Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or North-East England.

Try telling that to the residents of Lancaster, Carlisle, Barrow, Windermere, Chester, Llandudno, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle!

Disclaimer: I do support a slimmed down service to the airport if it improves overall reliability, but I doubt it will go down well with stakeholders.

Keep in mind that the Great Manchester councils are all stakeholders in Manchester Airport. So getting people from beyond travelling from, and more importantly spending money in Manchester Airport is a serious consideration for them all, especially Manchester itself. And Manchester Airport wants to double it's annual passenger flows.

Funny how no matter how often this is stated, it is always ignored when debating Castlefield and airport services...

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Could combining the Blackpool and Cumbria trains with portions splitting at Preston work? That would reduce the total number of trains through Castlefield.

With no wires to Barrow or Windermere bi-mode stock would be needed: would the bi-modes also work to Blackpool (operationally simpler but needing a larger fleet) or would the bi-modes need to simply be compatible with the Blackpool stock but on their own diagrams? I'd prefer full electrification. Platform utilisation at Preston could be an issue too. Otherwise not a bad option.

2tph Crewe/Airport - Liverpool (alternating via CLC and Chat Moss)
2tph Airport - Blackpool/Cumbria (splits at Preston, 1tph to Barrow, 1tph to Windermere)
2tph Airport - Southport
2tph Airport - Leeds/North East

The Scotland train would run to Manchester Victoria via Wigan and Chat Moss.

Very droll!

There is no need to run trains from Manchester Airport to Cumbria, Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or North-East England.

As previously explained there is a need. The days of "Ringway" being a purely local airport just for Manchester are long-gone. It is de-facto the long-haul airport for the north of England and Wales as well as providing an alternative departure point for Scotland and some of the midlands. Until overall frequencies and reliability of rail services are significantly improved through services from the places mentioned will continue to be part of Manchester Airport's rail connection offer.

 

[PTR 444]

With no wires to Barrow or Windermere bi-mode stock would be needed: would the bi-modes also work to Blackpool (operationally simpler but needing a larger fleet) or would the bi-modes need to simply be compatible with the Blackpool stock but on their own diagrams? I'd prefer full electrification. Platform utilisation at Preston could be an issue too. Otherwise not a bad option.

Can’t 331s and 195s couple up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can’t 331s and 195s couple up?

Unfortunately not, other than for emergency recovery.

 

[GJMarshy]

The best compromise seems to be retaining direct connectivity to the airport in the form of stopper services operating under an S-Bahn style touch in/out system, with a new alignment through Central Manchester for fast “intercity” trains. One of the biggest issues with Castlefield is the differing service patterns making it hard to get a reliable high throughput. If all services are running as stoppers and locked to Styal (therefore not crossing Piccadilly throat) you’d get up to 15-16tph reliably.

That seems to be what’s lacking with NPR plans. What is the plan for the existing network? I can’t see it getting anywhere if the business case doesn’t extend beyond decreased journey times. If TfN or network rail can release a detailed publication of such plans, it would do a great deal of good.

Personally I think putting all our eggs in the basket of NPR (the HS3 bit) to solve all our problems isn’t sustainable. It’s 20-30 years away at least. Given the rate the city is growing (and the north as a while) are we really expected to live with this bottleneck for the foreseeable?

There’s been some excellent suggestions on here for short-medium term solutions, but at a minimum authorities and politicians will need to accept the compromise of fewer “fast” trains to the airport. If changing trains is too much of a faff, make them stoppers.

Manchester can’t have a rail network that prioritises fast connections to the airport from other cities if it means a poor service for its own population. So many parts of greater Manchester see infrequent, unreliable rail services, and road traffic is only increasing, with little to no capacity for more metrolink lines in the centre. There’s still a place for metrolink expansion, but it shouldn’t be a substitute for heavy rail, especially on routes already on the rail network.

Realistically there’s only going to be one tunnel under the city centre in most of our lifetimes, therefore it will need to pull as much weight and release as much capacity as possible. Using it for fast and semi-fast services makes the most sense in terms of:

1)Simple to construct, only 1-2 stations required.
2)Releasing the full Castlefield and Victoria corridor for a much higher-capacity, stratified service pattern and making best use of existing assets including city centre stations and the Ordsall Chord.
3)Creating more capacity between Piccadilly and Cornbrook by allowing services through Castlefield to stop on the existing line at Cornbrook, parallel to the Metrolink stop. That will nicely take the Piccadilly-Quays commuter market, leaving more space on trams.
4) Reducing traffic on roads, particularly in congested south Manchester. The Styal line covers a wide area where people still drive since rail is infrequent and unreliable (thanks to direct airport services through Castlefield)

Ultimately the solution needs to tick as many boxes as possible. Capacity, connectivity, modal-shift, operational flexibility and environmental factors. We need big picture thinking from the top brass.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure a tunnel is actually needed for the mainline. A Metrolink tunnel would however be useful if more is to be put onto Metrolink. Northern Powerhouse Rail is likely to reverse at Piccadilly instead, is it not?

If I was going to spend on a big project it'd be to buy and demolish the Arena and redevelop Victoria into a proper quality intercity station with the same sort of facilities as Piccadilly and 6-8 long through platforms.

 

[daodao]

As previously explained there is a need. The days of "Ringway" being a purely local airport just for Manchester are long-gone. It is de-facto the long-haul airport for the north of England and Wales as well as providing an alternative departure point for Scotland and some of the midlands. Until overall frequencies and reliability of rail services are significantly improved through services from the places mentioned will continue to be part of Manchester Airport's rail connection offer.

Keep in mind that the Great Manchester councils are all stakeholders in Manchester Airport. So getting people from beyond travelling from, and more importantly spending money in Manchester Airport is a serious consideration for them all, especially Manchester itself. And Manchester Airport wants to double it's annual passenger flows.

Funny how no matter how often this is stated, it is always ignored when debating Castlefield and airport services...

Unlike the rest of the North of England, North Cheshire's economy does not need enhancing - it is overheating, as exemplified by the local house prices. There is enough development close to Manchester Airport already. It is the rest of the North of England that needs "levelling up".

 

[PTR 444]

Unfortunately not, other than for emergency recovery.

That’s a shame. They are after all the same trains just with different traction power.

Another option could be only running 1tph from the Airport to Blackpool and 1tph Airport to Scotland* at even intervals. A second Preston - Blackpool shuttle would connect with the Scotland train to maintain connectivity to Manchester, all Barrow services would start from Preston while Windermere would be reduced to an hourly shuttle from Oxenholme (with all Manchester Scotland trains calling there).

*Scotland could be substituted with Barrow or Windermere, but you can’t really terminate the Scotland train short of Manchester can you? The truth is that train needs somewhere to turnaround, and doing so at Airport would be much easier than in the centre of Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another option could be only running 1tph from the Airport to Blackpool and 1tph Airport to Scotland* at even intervals. A second Preston - Blackpool shuttle would connect with the Scotland train to maintain connectivity to Manchester, all Barrow services would start from Preston while Windermere would be reduced to an hourly shuttle from Oxenholme (with all Manchester Scotland trains calling there).

This would cause a capacity problem unless platforms were lengthened to allow running at least 8.331 formations. It'd be better sending some of it to Vic than removing it entirely.

 

[PTR 444]

This would cause a capacity problem unless platforms were lengthened to allow running at least 8.331 formations. It'd be better sending some of it to Vic than removing it entirely.

Which essentially brings us back to the December 2019 timetable, albeit without Bolton trains crossing the Piccadilly throat from Castlefield to Stockport.

 

[AndrewE]

If I was going to spend on a big project it'd be to buy and demolish the Arena and redevelop Victoria into a proper quality intercity station with the same sort of facilities as Piccadilly and 6-8 long through platforms.

but that completely ignores the issue of airport connectivity.
I have done Vic to Picc and vv many times, by bus, tram and walking. None of those options would be acceptable to anyone if they didn't know the area and were going to the airport with a big case. People expect in-station changes and as few of them as possible.
As has been said elsewhere, the arena is pretty well life-expired, so expanding Victoria again shouldn't be too difficult (for which read expensive) and I do like the idea of the airport shuttle being extended as a Picc-Vic link.
p.s. after much searching I have finally managed to find a tram journey time from Vic to the airport... estimated 1 hour! Not a very good substitute for an airport shuttle!

 

[WibbleWobble]

As has been said elsewhere, the arena is pretty well life-expired, so expanding Victoria again shouldn't be too difficult (for which read expensive) and I do like the idea of the airport shuttle being extended as a Picc-Vic link.

Manchester Arena is in the middle of a £50 million, three-year redevelopment, that will increase capacity. So that will be going nowhere!

 

[Bletchleyite]

but that completely ignores the issue of airport connectivity.

It doesn't - see my proposal for 2tph Stalybridge-Vic-Castlefield-Airport.

 

[GJMarshy]

I'm not sure a tunnel is actually needed for the mainline. A Metrolink tunnel would however be useful if more is to be put onto Metrolink. Northern Powerhouse Rail is likely to reverse at Piccadilly instead, is it not?

If I was going to spend on a big project it'd be to buy and demolish the Arena and redevelop Victoria into a proper quality intercity station with the same sort of facilities as Piccadilly and 6-8 long through platforms.

As much as it pains me to say it the arena won’t be going anywhere, at least for a few decades. It’s going under a huge refurbishment and is prized by the city council for the custom it brings to city centre hospitality and shops.

Victoria has a lot more potential to realise, but that will be in the form of more frequent local/regional electrified services, getting better use out of those 200m through platforms, and as others have suggested, running frequent services over the chord toward the airport to retain that connectivity.

Metrolink is above capacity between Pic & Vic with no space for more trams. No sensible solution should put more pressure on that overcrowded link.

 

[MarkyT]

As much as it pains me to say it the arena won’t be going anywhere, at least for a few decades. It’s going under a huge refurbishment and is prized by the city council for the custom it brings to city centre hospitality and shops.

It's also presumably a great traffic generator for the TOCs and Metrolink. Few major venues have such convenient rail and tram access, which must help reduce car traffic for events held there.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The best compromise seems to be retaining direct connectivity to the airport in the form of stopper services operating under an S-Bahn style touch in/out system, with a new alignment through Central Manchester for fast “intercity” trains. One of the biggest issues with Castlefield is the differing service patterns making it hard to get a reliable high throughput. If all services are running as stoppers and locked to Styal (therefore not crossing Piccadilly throat) you’d get up to 15-16tph reliably.

That seems to be what’s lacking with NPR plans. What is the plan for the existing network? I can’t see it getting anywhere if the business case doesn’t extend beyond decreased journey times. If TfN or network rail can release a detailed publication of such plans, it would do a great deal of good.

Personally I think putting all our eggs in the basket of NPR (the HS3 bit) to solve all our problems isn’t sustainable. It’s 20-30 years away at least. Given the rate the city is growing (and the north as a while) are we really expected to live with this bottleneck for the foreseeable?

There’s been some excellent suggestions on here for short-medium term solutions, but at a minimum authorities and politicians will need to accept the compromise of fewer “fast” trains to the airport. If changing trains is too much of a faff, make them stoppers.

Manchester can’t have a rail network that prioritises fast connections to the airport from other cities if it means a poor service for its own population. So many parts of greater Manchester see infrequent, unreliable rail services, and road traffic is only increasing, with little to no capacity for more metrolink lines in the centre. There’s still a place for metrolink expansion, but it shouldn’t be a substitute for heavy rail, especially on routes already on the rail network.

Realistically there’s only going to be one tunnel under the city centre in most of our lifetimes, therefore it will need to pull as much weight and release as much capacity as possible. Using it for fast and semi-fast services makes the most sense in terms of:

1)Simple to construct, only 1-2 stations required.
2)Releasing the full Castlefield and Victoria corridor for a much higher-capacity, stratified service pattern and making best use of existing assets including city centre stations and the Ordsall Chord.
3)Creating more capacity between Piccadilly and Cornbrook by allowing services through Castlefield to stop on the existing line at Cornbrook, parallel to the Metrolink stop. That will nicely take the Piccadilly-Quays commuter market, leaving more space on trams.
4) Reducing traffic on roads, particularly in congested south Manchester. The Styal line covers a wide area where people still drive since rail is infrequent and unreliable (thanks to direct airport services through Castlefield)

Ultimately the solution needs to tick as many boxes as possible. Capacity, connectivity, modal-shift, operational flexibility and environmental factors. We need big picture thinking from the top brass.

A couple of issues regarding the Styal line.

Firstly the Manchester stations are poorly sited away from the roads that pass under the line and accessed by uninviting ramped approaches. To make them more attractive to prospective passengers would need considerable sums spent on them. In the meantime some people within those stations' catchment areas have very frequent bus services direct to the city centre (Stockport Rd and Wilmslow Rd corridors) and would need a high frequency rail service to win them over. Difficult to reconcile that with providing longer distance through services. Ideally the line needs four-tracking (no room without massive amounts of demolition) or a new route for those longer-distance trains (ie NPR/HS3, years and years away if it actually happens at all)

Secondly the current infrastructure dictates that Trafford Park freights use the line to avoid long trains all over the junctions in the Stockport area. These freights are an additional constraint on timetabling the line and rerouting them via a new link westward from Trafford Park to the Chat Moss line seems as distant a possibility as ever.

Like everything else about solving the Castlefield issues the choice seems to be between spending lots of money or reducing the utility of the local/regional rail network. As you say it needs big picture thinking but modern politicians seem mostly incapable of this.

Unlike the rest of the North of England, North Cheshire's economy does not need enhancing - it is overheating, as exemplified by the local house prices. There is enough development close to Manchester Airport already. It is the rest of the North of England that needs "levelling up".

A case of I'm all right Jack? Or simple NIMBYism? Neither is very persuasive.

That’s a shame. They are after all the same trains just with different traction power.

Indeed. But given the difficulty of pathing diesels north of Preston any increase to Cumbrian through services is going to need bi-modes or full electrification (to Barrow/Windermere)

This would cause a capacity problem unless platforms were lengthened to allow running at least 8.331 formations. It'd be better sending some of it to Vic than removing it entirely.

While I sympathise with your calls for longer platforms almost everywhere modern SDO equipment reduces the need somewhat.

Which essentially brings us back to the December 2019 timetable, albeit without Bolton trains crossing the Piccadilly throat from Castlefield to Stockport.

Boosting the Castlefield-Stockport link was part of the raison d'etre for the Windsor Link. Higher traffic levels now mean such services really need grade separation at Slade Lane Jn though some of the necessary flyovers/trackwork might be more easily accommodated in the Longsight area. But we seem to be extremely reluctant to progress additional grade separation in this country (still waiting for Woking Jn)

 

[Chester1]

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...)

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

I think the definition of Manchester is key to this question. The city borough is rather an odd shape and Greater Manchester is more of a city region. I think trams should be the main form of rail travel for journeys within the M60 and competitive for some places beyond the M60. This is already largely the case. There is still some scope for conversions to tram or tram train e.g. Marple. Glossop might work for tram train but is too far for current Metrolink rolling stock. Having places like Gorton, Hyde, Romiley and Reddish being served by train isn't ideal for capacity at Piccadilly especially when there are old alignments from Ardwick to Guide Bridge to Hyde. Getting the business case right has proven tricky for TfGM though.

 

[The Planner]

Secondly the current infrastructure dictates that Trafford Park freights use the line to avoid long trains all over the junctions in the Stockport area. These freights are an additional constraint on timetabling the line and rerouting them via a new link westward from Trafford Park to the Chat Moss line seems as distant a possibility as ever.

Yes and no, they arent any slower than a stopper.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think the definition of Manchester is key to this question. The city borough is rather an odd shape and Greater Manchester is more of a city region. I think trams should be the main form of rail travel for journeys within the M60 and competitive for some places beyond the M60. This is already largely the case. There is still some scope for conversions to tram or tram train e.g. Marple. Glossop might work for tram train but is too far for current Metrolink rolling stock. Having places like Gorton, Hyde, Romiley and Reddish being served by train isn't ideal for capacity at Piccadilly especially when there are old alignments from Ardwick to Guide Bridge to Hyde. Getting the business case right has proven tricky for TfGM though.

I agree with you in principle, but I think we're getting to the point where city centre capacity is a problem for Metrolink. The Piccadilly branch isn't too busy as it is, with only 3 routes (which at Metrolink standard frequency is 15tph in each direction), but with trams to Glossop, Hadfield and Rose Hill and presumably at some point the reinstatement of the Etihad-MediaCity service, that could rise to 35tph in each direction. I'm not saying it isn't possible to get 35tph in each direction along a two-track railway, but I doubt that it could be done reliably on Metrolink taking into account the crossing of the A6 at Piccadilly). Then of course all those trams need somewhere to go from Piccadilly Gardens. I can't really see how more trams onto Moseley Street or Market Street / High Street would work.

I think in an ideal world, where there was any prospect of large amounts of money being spent on a project, I'd want to see the current lines that predominantly run off-street (Bury, Oldham/Rochdale, Altrincham, the East Didsbury / Airport routes and any future rail conversions) put into a tunnel under the city centre to create an underground system (albeit with some street running outside the city centre). Then the bulk of the current street-running infrastructure could be converted to a modern low-floor tramway, which would pave the way for conversions of busy bus routes to tram operation, allow for easier/cheaper addition of stops and new links within the city centre, and mean the removal of the big platforms from city centre (the one on Market Street in particular is a bit of an obstruction to the huge volumes of pedestrian traffic). M5000s could hang around for a bit on the underground system, being supplemented and eventually replaced by something more suitable.

Of course, once this was all done, assuming Hadfield, Glossop and Rose Hill were brought into the scheme, you'd have lots of capacity at Piccadilly. Perhaps if the underground route took in Oxford Road and Deansgate, there would no longer be a need for local trains on the Castlefield corridor and it could become a purely long-distance operation. Perhaps there would be enough spare capacity to go back to reversing TransPennine trains at Piccadilly, which would take some pressure of Castlefield at the expense of making the Ordsall Chord completely useless...

 

[AndrewE]

It doesn't - see my proposal for 2tph Stalybridge-Vic-Castlefield-Airport.

but that is hardly an adequate airport metro for all the people off the long-distance trains we are proposing to divert to Vicroria, is it?

 

[PTR 444]

but that is hardly an adequate airport metro for all the people off the long-distance trains we are proposing to divert to Vicroria, is it?

If you make the Ordsall Chord, Castlefield and Styal Line exclusively for this Airport shuttle, there’s no reason why you can’t have an 8tph or even 12tph metro service between Victoria and Airport. All trains from Chat Moss and Bolton would be diverted to Victoria, CLC trains would terminate at Oxford Road and everything from Stockport would terminate at Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you make the Ordsall Chord, Castlefield and Styal Line exclusively for this Airport shuttle, there’s no reason why you can’t have an 8tph or even 12tph metro service between Victoria and Airport. All trains from Chat Moss and Bolton would be diverted to Victoria, CLC trains would terminate at Oxford Road and everything from Stockport would terminate at Piccadilly.

That would be a bad idea. A mixed Merseyrail like S Bahn based on 2 or 4tph services, copying the German concept, would be best. You could take that up to 4 though, which would be plenty.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2023 ==

but that is hardly an adequate airport metro for all the people off the long-distance trains we are proposing to divert to Vicroria, is it?

2tph at 8.331 would be more than plenty, though I suppose you could go to 4 to minimise waiting.