Purple Orange
On Moderation
The only benefit would be to change the nature of services running along the CLC. If there are no Sheffield bound services, should it not be converted to a metro service level, calling at all stops?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
We need to talk about Castlefield again.
- Thread starter mwmbwls
- Start date
- Status
The only benefit would be to change the nature of services running along the CLC. If there are no Sheffield bound services, should it not be converted to a metro service level, calling at all stops?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The Warringtonians wouldn't like that, though I have proposed before, and still think would be sensible, a 4tph Liverpool-Manchester via CLC service of which half call all stations on one side and half call all stations on the other side of Warrington (and all call at key stations like South Parkway, Widnes, Birchwood and Urmston), operated using 195s for the acceleration.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Thought the Liverpool Calder Valley service didn't materialise because it couldn't be pathed?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
If so, do you have a link to the official statement that states this?
Glenn1969
Established Member
Just saw articles at the time saying Network Rail had objected to the proposal
Hey 3
Member
Fixed it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You could also send it via Ashton Moss and Heaton Norris, but no, it would be a round about route and almost kill Stockport's fast connections to Sheffield, plus Manchester Victoria has not got direct connections to Glasgow( Manchester Piccadily does) and you could argue that Wigan NW & Wallgate and Preston etc is better provided at Manchester Piccadilly, given the quality of rolling stock.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Just harking back to the days of both Manchester Victoria and Manchester Exchange being fully operational, there were of course fast through lines unaffected by platform requirements, situated in the running lines areas between platforms 11 and 12 at Manchester Victoria, where non-stop through services including goods trains could utilise without hinderence to normal passenger services.
I used to travel quite regularly from Lancaster to Manchester during the early 1990s and again around the turn of the year 2000.
My memory of the early 90s trips is a bit hazy, although I do recall loco-hauled Mark IIs on what became Cross Country used to run from the WCML to Castlefield via Bolton ultimately replaced by Voyagers and then transferred to TPE. On Saturdays I seem to think some of the local trains southbound from Preston went to Victoria and some to Piccadilly.
But by the 1999 to 2002 period, it was already dire. Everyone and their dog was routed via Castlefield. Going home from Oxford Road, it would be easier to get a train back to Pic and board there since otherwise it would be standing room only to around Horwich / Lostock. And platform 13/14 was then, as now, just horrible. An on time departure was very much the exception. So I couldn't understand when they proposed Ordsall Curve what on earth they hoped to achieve, and I still can't understand it now to be honest! Even if Castlefield were four tracked, and Piccadilly had two new platforms (or 10 new platforms), you still end up with the dogs dinner of flat crossings to the west.
I can't see what two new platform faces would do to help. The problem, as has been repeated ad nauseum above, is the decision that all services should go to Pic and the airport.
Network Rail's paper option C makes some effort to reduce that, but it's still not radical enough.
This is a fantasy thread of course, so we can propose any ideas.
1. Move Metrolink (partially) across to the Deansgate GNR viaduct to the West. The Eastbound CLC line can then use space on the Cornbrook viaduct to cross over the Castlefield lines and then join a bit further on, grade separating them.
2. Likewise at the Ordsall junction for the Windsor link, grade separate Windsor northbound traffic with a diveunder the Eccles line.
The above two removes some of the conflicting moves. Nothing you can do about Ordsall chord (other than go back in time and not build it, but we are where we are).
3. Extend the platform 1 at Oxford Road. It looks like there is space on the formation to do this up to a bridge at Gloucester Street, but this could be extended over the road relatively simply.
4. Put lifts, etc., into platform 1.
This gives you the same platforming capacity you would have had with 15 and 16 to allow trains to wait if necessary. It also allows platform 1 to be used as a terminating and turnaround platform if necessary without blocking the rest during the turnaround time.
5. Chat Moss stoppers, Southport / Kirkby, Blackpool and Barrow / Windermere go to Victoria, or the odd one can go to Oxford Road (perhaps one path an hour can be alternated between them). Additional peaks go to Oxford Road only.
6. There's space to slew the Metrolink lines at Victoria to the south east and therefore shift the line entering platform 1. Platforms 1 and 2 could therefore be extended under Cheetham Hill Road.
7. There's also plenty of space including the old chord from Victoria to Queen's Road for turnback sidings so that Eastbound terminators don't hold up the platforms.
8. If push comes to shove there's also space for a "Victoria West" terminating couple of bay platforms for peak hours.
For shoppers / many commuters / day trippers, Victoria and Oxford Road are more convenient than Piccadilly anyway. So why the obsession with everything having to run through to 13/14 and on to the airport?
Onward connectivity is one, but there are plenty of ways to interconnect without all services having to serve Pic. It's a legacy of 1980s rationalisation. Like when they wanted to close Marylebone station in London.
My memory of the early 90s trips is a bit hazy, although I do recall loco-hauled Mark IIs on what became Cross Country used to run from the WCML to Castlefield via Bolton ultimately replaced by Voyagers and then transferred to TPE. On Saturdays I seem to think some of the local trains southbound from Preston went to Victoria and some to Piccadilly.
But by the 1999 to 2002 period, it was already dire. Everyone and their dog was routed via Castlefield. Going home from Oxford Road, it would be easier to get a train back to Pic and board there since otherwise it would be standing room only to around Horwich / Lostock. And platform 13/14 was then, as now, just horrible. An on time departure was very much the exception. So I couldn't understand when they proposed Ordsall Curve what on earth they hoped to achieve, and I still can't understand it now to be honest! Even if Castlefield were four tracked, and Piccadilly had two new platforms (or 10 new platforms), you still end up with the dogs dinner of flat crossings to the west.
I can't see what two new platform faces would do to help. The problem, as has been repeated ad nauseum above, is the decision that all services should go to Pic and the airport.
Network Rail's paper option C makes some effort to reduce that, but it's still not radical enough.
This is a fantasy thread of course, so we can propose any ideas.
1. Move Metrolink (partially) across to the Deansgate GNR viaduct to the West. The Eastbound CLC line can then use space on the Cornbrook viaduct to cross over the Castlefield lines and then join a bit further on, grade separating them.
2. Likewise at the Ordsall junction for the Windsor link, grade separate Windsor northbound traffic with a diveunder the Eccles line.
The above two removes some of the conflicting moves. Nothing you can do about Ordsall chord (other than go back in time and not build it, but we are where we are).
3. Extend the platform 1 at Oxford Road. It looks like there is space on the formation to do this up to a bridge at Gloucester Street, but this could be extended over the road relatively simply.
4. Put lifts, etc., into platform 1.
This gives you the same platforming capacity you would have had with 15 and 16 to allow trains to wait if necessary. It also allows platform 1 to be used as a terminating and turnaround platform if necessary without blocking the rest during the turnaround time.
5. Chat Moss stoppers, Southport / Kirkby, Blackpool and Barrow / Windermere go to Victoria, or the odd one can go to Oxford Road (perhaps one path an hour can be alternated between them). Additional peaks go to Oxford Road only.
6. There's space to slew the Metrolink lines at Victoria to the south east and therefore shift the line entering platform 1. Platforms 1 and 2 could therefore be extended under Cheetham Hill Road.
7. There's also plenty of space including the old chord from Victoria to Queen's Road for turnback sidings so that Eastbound terminators don't hold up the platforms.
8. If push comes to shove there's also space for a "Victoria West" terminating couple of bay platforms for peak hours.
For shoppers / many commuters / day trippers, Victoria and Oxford Road are more convenient than Piccadilly anyway. So why the obsession with everything having to run through to 13/14 and on to the airport?
Onward connectivity is one, but there are plenty of ways to interconnect without all services having to serve Pic. It's a legacy of 1980s rationalisation. Like when they wanted to close Marylebone station in London.
The airport is just a convenient place to terminate trains. There isn't capacity to terminate them at Victoria or Oxford Road instead until your west bays are built - maybe Salford Central ought to be rebuilt with some west facing bays.
Once on the Castlefield corridor it is clearly more useful to send the trains to the Airport than Mayfield Loop / Longsight etc.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Albeit a fantasy idea, in what condition is the viaduct suggested actually in at present. Has anyone information concerning the last official document that made a condition report upon it and were any cost proposals made for a full reinstatement of the track bed of the viaduct of the type that would have the strength to take light rail movements upon it.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Remember that DfT want Castlefield solved at least short or medium term with as close to zero infrastructure spend as they can get
Not sure, although Wikipedia says that the Cornbrook viaduct was chosen because the older one was in poorer condition. But the cost of getting something that exists and is built up to scratch for light rail use would surely be an order of magnitude cheaper than four tracking Castlefield (which keeps the at grade junctions anyway as Freightliner still need access to the mainline) or building tunnels / lifting Piccadilly up with a fleet of Chinooks and dropping it in St Peter's square / etc)?
Killingworth
Established Member
Except there are aren't enough, or long enough, platforms at the Airport to accept all the trains some would have terminating there.
If there were there'd be a lot of surplus capacity from Piccadilly to the airport.
So we go back to frequent shuttles of short trains from Piccadilly to the airport from, maybe, bay platforms 15 and 16 rather than planned through platforms?
So far so good/bad, but where could the long distance trains then terminate? Stockport Platform 0, or those old bay platforms, both too short and one with lifted track and obstructed anyway! Maybe not.
Which brings us back to sending a long distance train on another long distance leg across the country. Which results in greater probability of delays, and we're back to square one.
No easy answers in the short term because every one that's suggested adds a problem for someone, somewhere else.
Lots of little alterations will be tried over the next 10 - 20 years but what's needed can't be achieved above ground. I've brought it up before.
The only satisfactory solution is a brand new underground circle or box below Central Manchester. Thameslink and Crossrail on a smaller scale but bigger than Liverpool's Wirral loop. The further such tunnels went from the centre the more they'd cost and disrupt, but the more they'd benefit long distance journey times.
Anything less won't allow significant speeding up, extra capacity or extra services. Stuffing ever more onto increasingly fragile Victorian infrastructure guarantees an infinite continuation of the current situation.
I'm under the impression that restoring the old viaduct to an operational condition isn't a cheap job. Probably nearly cheaper to (somehow) build an entirely new viaduct.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
There appears to only be one politically workable solution in town here and that is to build NPR, thus enabling more northern services to operate across Castlefield. Yet I suspect the government doesn't want to do that because Manchester is not London and the north is not the the south east.
Other than that, it would be west facing bays somewhere. Ideally 6 new bays. That is also unlikely to happen for reasons outlined in my first paragraph.
The third way I'd like to see is a 12 tph service, of which 8 tph go to the airport and 4 tph head to Stockport then on only one destination.
Other than that, it would be west facing bays somewhere. Ideally 6 new bays. That is also unlikely to happen for reasons outlined in my first paragraph.
The third way I'd like to see is a 12 tph service, of which 8 tph go to the airport and 4 tph head to Stockport then on only one destination.
Hey 3
Member
Ideally those bays would be at both Manchester Vic and Picc (both west facing, and possibly Salford Central, Manchester Oxford Road (both west facing) and Stockport (north facing).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Vic has enough space for 2 bays, possibly even 3, butting up against the Arena north of the existing station. There is already a viaduct running to it, too, though no doubt it would need some considerable repairs.
If you added another bridge in the gap you could get 4 in.
Only problem is that they'd be a bit Picc 13-14 in terms of accessing them, you'd need to cross to P6 then walk all the way along.
Roughly where it says "Parking" on this map:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Vic has enough space for 2 bays, possibly even 3, butting up against the Arena north of the existing station. There is already a viaduct running to it, too, though no doubt it would need some considerable repairs.
If you added another bridge in the gap you could get 4 in.
Only problem is that they'd be a bit Picc 13-14 in terms of accessing them, you'd need to cross to P6 then walk all the way along.
Roughly where it says "Parking" on this map:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Take a train into Victoria from the Salford end and you’ll realise that it’s only large enough to fit a two carriage train, of which are minimal to/from Victoria.
That’s before you even begin to try and place buffers, platforms, junctions, footbridge access, signals, points etc.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You could get at least 3 coaches in there, I measured it up on screen last time it came up in discussion. Probably slightly longer if you slewed the northernmost track into the main "trainshed" over to the south side of the bridge it is on. It isn't quite clear on the image, but it goes right up the arena wall.
If you want something to measure against, there's a 4-car unit of some sort (looks like a 319) in a siding a bit to the west.
Building 3 car platforms makes no sense when the strategy is for longer trains than this on pretty much all routes. It would be hard-coding in a pretty major constraint.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Slew that northernmost track over towards the south and you'd easily make it 2 bays fitting 6 each.
Pretty sure off memory it takes that odd routeing because of the levels and to avoid a pretty major.supporting pier of the Arena structure.
On paper it might work, in practicality it doesn’t.
You are going to need room for “buffer” space between the buffers on the track and the arena wall, and that’s before you even consider they need a connection to the overbridge and platform 6. The end of platform 6 is also VERY narrow
Of all the things you don't want a train to collide with, the side wall of a multi-thousand capacity arena is pretty high on this list.
And that’s not forgetting that it’s structurally it’s connected to the main station. The last thing you’re going to want is an incident similar to the overrun at Kirkby where a train hits the arena structure during an event, and causes parts of the station roofing, bridges and fume vents to collapse into the station
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,326
With sufficient engineering you can engineer that wall to withstand anything a train can reasonably throw at it.
Steel plate construction as an (extreme) example.
It's all extra money to satisfy the safety case however.
Steel plate construction as an (extreme) example.
It's all extra money to satisfy the safety case however.
Purple Orange
On Moderation
6 platforms near Middlewood Locks is what is needed, with metrolink connected to it. I’ll counter the argument that it is not central enough by saying that no station in Manchester is completely central and the city centre reaches this part of the world too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd say that's a bit far out.
What was probably needed was not to have closed Central.
daodao
Established Member
No. The main problem is that Victoria was downsized too much and that it can no longer accommodate from the West all the ex-L&Y services that traditionally terminated there. However, it should be used for all trains from Southport, with the electric services from Chorley and beyond routed via the Castlefield line, as is currently proposed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Also fair, unfortunately it was rebuilt at the wrong time, when "everything through Castlefield" was the game. I still hope for the new Eastlands Arena being successful enough that the old one closes, and we could have a decent crack at rebuilding it again with twice as many platforms and a far higher quality passenger environment. That would basically solve the whole thing. Give it the feel of Picc main trainshed (rather than being old New St but worse) and nobody with any sense would ever want to cram themselves onto the horror that is Picc 13/14 ever again, even if it did mean a longer walk.
Victoria as it is is just a dump. OK, a dump with a fancy mural of long-closed lines and a fake-old ticket office, but still a dump. Only if you're using the tram or the relatively small number of trains using the east facing bays is it even vaguely acceptable, and even then it has all the charm of a multi-storey car park where everyone has left all the car engines running.
- Status