The HighLine for Manchester?

[AndrewNewens]

Having recently explored the Highline in Manhattan, New York, I wondered if there was any scope to develop a similar scheme anywhere in the UK.

This is a fabulous piece of community action has transformed an abandoned elevated freight line in to an exciting and vibrant walkway through a linear park. It's brilliant.

My immediate thoughts were for the disused viaducts east of Cornbrook towards the former Manchester Central Station. I walked these shorty after closure in 1968 and running parallel to the Metrolink and heavy rail route, the abandoned elevated trackbed could become an important catalyst for further urban renewal in the area. The disused viaducts are probably listed structures, so they might as well be put to good use.

https://www.thehighline.org/

Anyone got suggestions for other sites?

 

[thenorthern]

Where are you thinking of? The best spot I can think of would be the disused viaduct on the former line into Manchester Central station which is parallel to the current Metrolink viaduct.

 

[Geeves]

Its on the cards, one day!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20158919

Its always sunny in renderland

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My immediate thoughts were for the disused viaducts east of Cornbrook towards the former Manchester Central Station. I walked these shorty after closure in 1968 and running parallel to the Metrolink and heavy rail route, the abandoned elevated trackbed could become an important catalyst for further urban renewal in the area. The disused viaducts are probably listed structures, so they might as well be put to good use.

Carrying on away from the Castlefield area on these viaducts, eventually you will find that the line formation heading towards Cornbrook becomes part of the Manchester Metrolink line system and is still at viaduct high level. I am not sure if such an elevated walkway in such an area would be approved of by those charged with the running of the Manchester Metrolink system in that particular area. There is the cost of health and safety adherences to ensure the track-bed of the disused viaducts are safe to be walked upon.

 

[thenorthern]

I can see the other viaduct being used by Metrolink in the near future just not sure when.

 

[ianhr]

There will be an increase in conflicting movements at Castlefield Jct when the Ordsall chord is completed. Would it be possible to utilise the disused viaduct to create a grade separated junction here? Move the Metrolink tracks onto the currently disused viaduct and run the UP CLC line along the structures currently used by Metrolink and over the junction leading to the Ordsall 'triangle'. A short new curved single track viaduct would then be needed to bring the UP CLC line down towards Deansgate MSJA station with possibly the relocation of the platform there?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There will be an increase in conflicting movements at Castlefield Jct when the Ordsall chord is completed. Would it be possible to utilise the disused viaduct to create a grade separated junction here? Move the Metrolink tracks onto the currently disused viaduct and run the UP CLC line along the structures currently used by Metrolink and over the junction leading to the Ordsall 'triangle'. A short new curved single track viaduct would then be needed to bring the UP CLC line down towards Deansgate MSJA station with possibly the relocation of the platform there?

Where, exactly, would your platform relocation at Deansgate take place, noting its already elevated position? It seems a lot of work will be required at some considerable expense to effect all your other stated changes. How would these fit in with the forward rail use proposed on completion of the Ordsall Chord project?

 

[AndrewNewens]

Its on the cards, one day!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20158919

Its always sunny in renderland

Great minds think alike? Mind you, the story is 2 years old, anyone any idea if this one has any chance of becoming a reality?

 

[ianhr]

Where, exactly, would your platform relocation at Deansgate take place, noting its already elevated position? It seems a lot of work will be required at some considerable expense to effect all your other stated changes. How would these fit in with the forward rail use proposed on completion of the Ordsall Chord project?

I am not too sure of the permitted curve radii and gradients but I would suspect that the eastbound platform (at Deansgate) might need to be moved further easy to accommodate a junction.

It seems to me that the Castlefield-Piccadilly section is seriously congested now and will become even more so when York/Leeds-MIA and possibly also Calder Valley/East Lancs-MIA trains are routed this way. New platforms 15 + 16 at Piccadilly will provide some extra capacity by reducing the backing up of eastbound trains waiting for a platform. Nonetheless the route will still be quite inadequate for a robust cross-city corridor given the volume of traffic which could be expected in future.

The whole route really needs a radical re-think, it was cobbled together by BR trying to 'rationalise' their infrastructure (i.e. run down Victoria!) at the same time as increasing connectivity and opening new through journey opportunities.......without spending any money! Manchester Central had already been closed (all the major viaducts connected to the terminal which was the reason for their existence). Then the Piccadilly-Victoria tunnel was given up in favour of the cheapskate tramway scheme.

What could be done to create a high capacity robust and reliable cross-city railway? The expensive option I suppose would be a new line in tunnel. This won't happen and so the only realistic alternative is to make the best of the viaduct route. It really needs to be 4 track throughout but this would involve demolition of quite a lot of property. If the junctions at Ordsall, Windsor Bridge and Castlefield could be grade separated it reduces conflicting movements and increases reliability and reduces running times.

Capacity could also be increased by eliminating the Deansgate stop on the MSJA lines all together. How many people use it? It is served by the adjacent Metrolink stop and historically it was only served by the electric trains to Altrincham anyway (when it was called 'Knott Mill & Deansgate'?).

 

[snowball]

This is a fabulous piece of community action has transformed an abandoned elevated freight line in to an exciting and vibrant walkway through a linear park. It's brilliant.

When you say it's vibrant, do you mean it shakes when you walk on it?

 

[edwin_m]

I am not too sure of the permitted curve radii and gradients but I would suspect that the eastbound platform (at Deansgate) might need to be moved further easy to accommodate a junction.

It seems to me that the Castlefield-Piccadilly section is seriously congested now and will become even more so when York/Leeds-MIA and possibly also Calder Valley/East Lancs-MIA trains are routed this way. New platforms 15 + 16 at Piccadilly will provide some extra capacity by reducing the backing up of eastbound trains waiting for a platform. Nonetheless the route will still be quite inadequate for a robust cross-city corridor given the volume of traffic which could be expected in future.

The whole route really needs a radical re-think, it was cobbled together by BR trying to 'rationalise' their infrastructure (i.e. run down Victoria!) at the same time as increasing connectivity and opening new through journey opportunities.......without spending any money! Manchester Central had already been closed (all the major viaducts connected to the terminal which was the reason for their existence). Then the Piccadilly-Victoria tunnel was given up in favour of the cheapskate tramway scheme.

What could be done to create a high capacity robust and reliable cross-city railway? The expensive option I suppose would be a new line in tunnel. This won't happen and so the only realistic alternative is to make the best of the viaduct route. It really needs to be 4 track throughout but this would involve demolition of quite a lot of property. If the junctions at Ordsall, Windsor Bridge and Castlefield could be grade separated it reduces conflicting movements and increases reliability and reduces running times.

Capacity could also be increased by eliminating the Deansgate stop on the MSJA lines all together. How many people use it? It is served by the adjacent Metrolink stop and historically it was only served by the electric trains to Altrincham anyway (when it was called 'Knott Mill & Deansgate'?).

I think double-decking the viaduct has been considered a couple of times but not in any detail. The stations are the main constraint and the Piccadily alterations will mean alternate trains using alternate platforms there and at Oxford Road. As you mention the Deansgate constraint remains - but I think this is a useful interchange for journeys between the southern Metrolink routes and local stations towards Liverpool. A RUS a few years ago suggested heavy rail platforms at Cornbrook, which would be a better interchange than Deansgate, but I haven't heard any more of that idea.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A 'linear park' is a great idea, and there are a number of other cities where such a thing would be brilliant... BUT:

One place I've previously heard of such a scheme being suggested is the Holbeck viaduct in Leeds. Though if that viaduct isn't planned to be used or obliterated for HS2, it would in my opinion be better used to carry conventional trains once again, as it would massively increase capacity on the Western approaches to Leeds station, as well as possibly allowing an MUFC Halt style platform for Elland Road.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A RUS a few years ago suggested heavy rail platforms at Cornbrook, which would be a better interchange than Deansgate, but I haven't heard any more of that idea.

The new improved layout of the Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink stop with its improved access points and the fact that the heavy rail line passing the Cornbrook area is not on the line taken by the Ordsall Chord proposals, coupled with the fact that Deansgate station is on the city centre border makes Deansgate a better interchange option all round these days.

 

[snail]

I can see the other viaduct being used by Metrolink in the near future just not sure when.

It would cost far too much to bring it to acceptable standards. See http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1595647&postcount=1565

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Pictures / article from 2009 gives an indication of its poor condition. http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/bridges/castlefield.html

 

[davetheguard]

A 'linear park' is a great idea, and there are a number of other cities where such a thing would be brilliant... BUT:

One place I've previously heard of such a scheme being suggested is the Holbeck viaduct in Leeds. Though if that viaduct isn't planned to be used or obliterated for HS2, it would in my opinion be better used to carry conventional trains once again, as it would massively increase capacity on the Western approaches to Leeds station, as well as possibly allowing an MUFC Halt style platform for Elland Road.

There's one in Paris too, just south of the Gare de Lyon.

 

[Gathursty]

If you look from the platform at Ardwick in the direction of the Etihad Stadium, in the foreground you will see a viaduct which is extremely overgrown. Whilst it is further away from Manchester than Castlefield, I think it is a much better site for a 'highline' park development.

 

[kevconnor]

until a few weeks ago there was a self contained one above the soldiers gate at Manchester Victoria, it even developed it own cult status and fan club over on the Manchester Victoria thread on SSC, alas however it is now no more.

 

[Aictos]

Just quickly is Holbeck Viaduct in Leeds the disused railway viaduct that all incoming trains into Leeds see coming from Wakefield Westgate?

 

[AndyHudds]

Just quickly is Holbeck Viaduct in Leeds the disused railway viaduct that all incoming trains into Leeds see coming from Wakefield Westgate?

Yes that is indeed the Holbeck Viaduct, if you google the viaduct there has been some exploration of the viaduct with some interesting photos and videos to see. The viaduct is riddled with ginnels under its arches.

 

[BantamMenace]

Would deansgate be better if located to a 4 platform formation just after the junction where a proper interchange between CLC-bound, North-west-bound and Ordsall chord-bound trains can interchange fully with Metrolink. This could be done by removing the first span of the old iron viaduct and adding metrolink platforms directly above 2 platforms on the CLC and 2 platforms on the lines towards the proposed chord.

This would allow a similar arrangement to oxford road and piccadilly with trains not stopping on the double track section but instead waiting until it turns four track. (This however would break down slightly with the majority of traffic heading towards the chord and chat moss as oppose to the CLC however a service bound for the chord stopped at this new deansgate interchange wouldn't block services to the CLC or freight to trafford park.)

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A shame this idea wasn't proposed for the Great Central in Leicester then maybe some of the more interesting bridges and viaducts may have been saved.


http://www.gcrleicester.info/index.html

Also some remnants around Sheffield Victoria may lends themselves to a smaller version.

 

[edwin_m]

Would deansgate be better if located to a 4 platform formation just after the junction where a proper interchange between CLC-bound, North-west-bound and Ordsall chord-bound trains can interchange fully with Metrolink. This could be done by removing the first span of the old iron viaduct and adding metrolink platforms directly above 2 platforms on the CLC and 2 platforms on the lines towards the proposed chord.

Nice idea but I think it would fall foul of signalling overlaps. A train approaching from Cornbrook direction would lock the junction immediately beyond the end of its platform, preventing any train being routed towards Ordsall Lane or the Chord.

 

[BantamMenace]

Nice idea but I think it would fall foul of signalling overlaps. A train approaching from Cornbrook direction would lock the junction immediately beyond the end of its platform, preventing any train being routed towards Ordsall Lane or the Chord.

If a Crewe bound LM service is at Stone then can a VT Manchester bound service not pass through on the lines from the Trent valley before the LM service departs then? I can't think of any other examples where a station is so close to a junction which has 4 platforms but the concept is the same at stone.

 

[edwin_m]

If a Crewe bound LM service is at Stone then can a VT Manchester bound service not pass through on the lines from the Trent valley before the LM service departs then? I can't think of any other examples where a station is so close to a junction which has 4 platforms but the concept is the same at stone.

Not sure. Sometimes it can be dealt with by restricted overlaps but the train approaching the red then has to be brought down to a low speed by approach control at the previous signal. Sometimes it is permitted under grandfather rights but wouldn't be with new signalling. Also the overlap would "time out" after a period which is long enough that the train must have stopped at the signal or at least be approaching very slowly.

I don't know which if any of these apply at Stone (Kidsgrove would perhaps be similar). But the service frequency is a good deal less than at Deansgate so conflicts are much less likely.

 

[The Planner]

Signal 411 at Stone has a reduced overlap.