Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[daodao]

I remember them saying they would end, but the list was from Manchester Airport themselves.

The point about a lot of global destinations still stands and connecting to Liverpool has obvious benefits for the wider region.

Upgrades of the CLC or Chat Moss do not deliver the global connectivity that the proposed line does.

It really doesn't matter if it takes a handful of overseas passengers 30-60 minutes longer to reach Scouseland by public transport from Manchester Airport. For destinations other than central Liverpool it will remain much easier to travel by private car or taxi using the M56. A dedicated motorway coach service would be much cheaper than this proposed new line.

One of the issues with using rail to travel between the Greater Manchester and Merseyside conurbations is their relative proximity and dispersed nature, so private transport enables much shorter end-to-end journey times. The advantages of rail, particularly higher speed, are only significant over much longer distances, such as from NW England to London, where in addition the larger central area tends to be the predominant destination.

 

[HSTEd]

Are we actually trying to build a better Manchester-Liverpool railway, or are we trying to backdoor fund HS2 Phase 2b in the hopes that some government can be maneouvered into turning the HS2 money taps back on?

The two objectives produce very different schemes.

 

[BrianW]

It really doesn't matter if it takes a handful of overseas passengers 30-60 minutes longer to reach Scouseland by public transport from Manchester Airport. For destinations other than central Liverpool it will remain much easier to travel by private car or taxi using the M56. A dedicated motorway coach service would be much cheaper than this proposed new line.

One of the issues with using rail to travel between the Greater Manchester and Merseyside conurbations is their relative proximity and dispersed nature, so private transport enables much shorter end-to-end journey times. The advantages of rail, particularly higher speed, are only significant over much longer distances, such as from NW England to London, where in addition the larger central area tends to be the predominant destination.

I hope I may be forgiven not wading backthrough the 450 odd conteributions thus far ...
I can see that considerations might include, and hopefully do weigh ... the number, timings, frequencies 'importance' ,now and projected, of:

- Liverpool // Manchester 'Inter-city' journeys
- Commuting between and beyond
- London journeys
- Possible 'linkage' into HS2, NPR
- Airports

Manchester has been and is likely to continue to be more 'central' to planning.

IF a 30mins intercity 4tph Liverpool- Manchester service is provided, can a 'slow' service be accommodated with it?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are we actually trying to build a better Manchester-Liverpool railway, or are we trying to backdoor fund HS2 Phase 2b in the hopes that some government can be maneouvered into turning the HS2 money taps back on?

The two objectives produce very different schemes.

Any "money taps" that any Government can turn on will be for projects other than railways. If one, especially at General Election time, sees how departmental budget promises are put forward and in Premiership football terms view those other departments, the NHS will be top of the league and railways occupying league positions similar to those achieved last season by Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur.

 

[Topological]

Any "money taps" that any Government can turn on will be for projects other than railways. If one, especially at General Election time, sees how departmental budget promises are put forward and in Premiership football terms view those other departments, the NHS will be top of the league and railways occupying league positions similar to those achieved last season by Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur.

Is it just me who sees the analogy with Manchester United building their new stadium despite not achieving anything like Brentford

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

IF a 30mins intercity 4tph Liverpool- Manchester service is provided, can a 'slow' service be accommodated with it?

What new type of rolling stock and what carriage lengths will there be to operate the stated 30 minutes Intercity 4tph Liverpool to Manchester service and where will their servicing and operational depot be situated?

 

[Zomboid]

What new type of rolling stock and what carriage lengths will there be to operate the stated 30 minutes Intercity 4tph Liverpool to Manchester service and where will their servicing and operational depot be situated?

I'm not sure the project is sufficiently advanced to have answers to questions like that.

At present the issue is "do we want to segregate the fast trains from the stopping services between Liverpool and Manchester by building a new line?". If the answer to that is "yes", then those kinds of issues will be determined further down the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not sure the project is sufficiently advanced to have answers to questions like that.

At present the issue is "do we want to segregate the fast trains from the stopping services between Liverpool and Manchester by building a new line?". If the answer to that is "yes", then those kinds of issues will be determined further down the line.

My posting was in direct response to a thread contributor who actually cited such an aspiration.

 

[The Planner]

What new type of rolling stock and what carriage lengths will there be to operate the stated 30 minutes Intercity 4tph Liverpool to Manchester service and where will their servicing and operational depot be situated?

No one knows yet, and as long as the assumption is that it carries x people and capable of doing the journey in 30 minutes, it doesn't matter at this stage.

 

[Zomboid]

My posting was in direct response to a thread contributor who actually cited such an aspiration.

Those are the kind of problems which get answered at a much later design stage. Though looking at Google earth, maybe the depot might go somewhere near the power station, since that's a nice big brown field side next to the likely alignment. Presumably that's where the electricity will come from too (not the generation, but the grid connection substation).

And the trains will probably be formed of 23-25m long carriages with pointy ends.

 

[Nottingham59]

IF a 30mins intercity 4tph Liverpool- Manchester service is provided, can a 'slow' service be accommodated with it?

Only with substantial four-tracking along the route

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are we actually trying to build a better Manchester-Liverpool railway, or are we trying to backdoor fund HS2 Phase 2b in the hopes that some government can be maneouvered into turning the HS2 money taps back on?

The two objectives produce very different schemes.

NPR's viability is closely associated with HS2. Thus the two are inseparably linked.

What the NPR bit is about is improved local and regional services on the CLC and Chat Moss. NPR doesn't otherwise provide much, because the Victoria-Lime St fast service is already quite quick.

Like HS2, it's mis-sold. It's not about speed, it's about capacity, punctuality and reliability - specifically, taking fast trains off congested infrastructure and making room for local trains and freight to operate punctually.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

IF a 30mins intercity 4tph Liverpool- Manchester service is provided, can a 'slow' service be accommodated with it?

Fiddler's Ferry doesn't need a slow service - there's nothing there to serve! That's one of the unique benefits of that route as a fast one. It either goes through places that are already served by a local station on the CLC (whose service would be improved by moving the two fasts per hour off there, either by extending Merseyrail/Metrolink or by way of a more frequent stopping service, ideally 25kV electrified) or nothingness, on one side of which is the Ship Canal so there's not space for a decent New Town.

 

[HSTEd]

NPR's viability is closely associated with HS2. Thus the two are inseparably linked.

That doesn't mean that the railway should adopt the Manchester Airport-Piccadilly tunnel concept simply because HS2 proposed it.

HS2 Phase 2b as a scheme is utterly dead. If high speed rail reaches Manchester in the future it need not follow the alignment specified in the original scheme. Indeed, construction of a fast Liverpool-Manchester line is likely to change the route optimisation calculations for a HSL to the North West!

HS2, with trains capable of eating up a kilometre in less than 12 seconds, would be able to make use of any approach to Manchester that is provided by NPR, regardless of whether it was the originally planned one or not.

What the NPR bit is about is improved local and regional services on the CLC and Chat Moss. NPR doesn't otherwise provide much, because the Victoria-Lime St fast service is already quite quick.

Like HS2, it's mis-sold. It's not about speed, it's about capacity, punctuality and reliability - specifically, taking fast trains off congested infrastructure and making room for local trains and freight to operate punctually.

If its about local and regional services on the CLC and Chat Moss, why does it go wandering off to MAnchester Airport rather than actually travelling in the direction it purports to serve?

Building HS2 a few kilometres further north to join the line wherever it is will not meaningfully impact a decision to build a Handsacre-Manchester HSL or not, but avoiding an unnecessary detour to Manchester Airport would likely reduce costs now.
If we serve Manchester Airport with this route, it should be because doing so right now makes sense in isolation.

Fiddler's Ferry doesn't need a slow service - there's nothing there to serve! That's one of the unique benefits of that route as a fast one. It either goes through places that are already served by a local station on the CLC (whose service would be improved by moving the two fasts per hour off there, either by extending Merseyrail/Metrolink or by way of a more frequent stopping service, ideally 25kV electrified) or nothingness, on one side of which is the Ship Canal so there's not space for a decent New Town.

Ofcourse, the proposed scheme doesn't remove the fasts on the CLC!

 

[Tremzinho]

Liverpool Gateway is clearly designed as a way to redress the balance of the Manchester Airport stop. The details just aren’t there yet but it’s the main change from the previous NPR proposals.

I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this Gateway station will do anything to improve access to Liverpool Airport. It’s highly unlikely it will even have a bus service to the airport, apart from perhaps the infrequent 82A that runs from Runcorn to Liverpool.

If the proposed eastern tunnel portals are built, trains would continue from the new railway via Stalybridge to Leeds/York and further afield, as well as via Guide Bridge and Hyde to Sheffield. Especially with the frequency increase that would be enabled, that only increases connectivity!

Again it’s just a wish list. Manchester’s priority is getting a connection to HS2 by hook or by crook. This scheme is just a way to get it through the back door.

Notice how the Warrington to Liverpool section is listed as phase 2 of the project, despite being the easiest and cheapest section.

I must admit feeling frustrated by all the negative comments about the new LMR. Why come to this forum if you're against railway infrastructure? In the hopes of finding out about cancelled projects to celebrate?

I am not quoting any particular post as I am mainly venting and not interested in any back and forth, which seems to always end up being a debate about cars vs rail (transport forum equivalent of Godwins Law).

There's a 60 page report linked earlier in this thread but it's as if only a single data point is used to argue against the scheme: the fastest journey times taken in isolation. The project is transformational for existing routes and connections due to the current mixing of stopping patterns. The new scheme only has a few stops in order to be fast and reliable, but crucially, all existing stations outside the scheme will benefit. A few screenshots attached on this point.

I get how you might feel that. The issue is that the opportunity cost of building this very expensive line is to see other rail schemes kept on the back burner for another generation. Everyone on here is likely to have schemes they are passionate about, and you can’t expect these to be the same as the ones you are hoping for.

We need CLC electrification, Merseyrail expansion (including the Wapping Tunnel and a line to the airport), the list goes on.

I was supportive of this line being build as part of HS2 as a national infrastructure project, but now it is being pushed as more of a regional scheme it is more likely to eat into funds that compete with other projects locally. My frustration is with LCR Mayor Steve Rotheram, who seems to under the thumb of Andy Burnham and consistently fails to strike a good deal for the Liverpool City Region.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If its about local and regional services on the CLC and Chat Moss, why does it go wandering off to MAnchester Airport rather than actually travelling in the direction it purports to serve?

That's the HS2 bit, replacing Stockport. A South Manchester Parkway is absolutely necessary to make HS2 viable. Stockport is much busier than a lot of people think with this park and ride traffic (some of which will of course go to Liverpool), and the lack of an equivalent M25 Parkway down South is in my view a very serious error with HS2.

Ofcourse, the proposed scheme doesn't remove the fasts on the CLC!

Why does it not? Why could those not all terminate in Piccadilly main train shed once potentially four 200m long Piccadilly-Lime St fasts per hour are added?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

We need CLC electrification, Merseyrail expansion (including the Wapping Tunnel and a line to the airport), the list goes on.

CLC electrification could either mean extending Merseyrail or a 4tph EMU local service. Neither of those things is possible without NPR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

I was supportive of this line being build as part of HS2 as a national infrastructure project, but now it is being pushed as more of a regional scheme it is more likely to eat into funds that compete with other projects locally. My frustration is with LCR Mayor Steve Rotheram, who seems to under the thumb of Andy Burnham and consistently fails to strike a good deal for the Liverpool City Region.

Liverpool won't properly grow until it understands and accepts the following two inalienable facts which are not going to change:

1. The North West can only grow and rival the South East if it works together, certainly within the Liverpool-Manchester-Preston triangle and immediate surrounds.
2. Liverpool will for the foreseeable future be subservient to Manchester in this context. (I think it still harks back to when it was the other way round).

There isn't the same issue in the West Midlands where Cov and Wolves are secondary cities but benefit hugely from their connection to the Birmingham powerhouse.

Imagine a North West Combined Authority and rather than the Bee Network and Merseytravel a North West mega-PTE, and what that could achieve? Trouble is it'd practically have to be headquartered in Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

That's the HS2 bit, replacing Stockport. A South Manchester Parkway is absolutely necessary to make HS2 viable. Stockport is much busier than a lot of people think with this park and ride traffic (some of which will of course go to Liverpool), and the lack of an equivalent M25 Parkway down South is in my view a very serious error with HS2.

A south manchester parkway probably is a good idea for a London-North West HSL.
But is there any strong reason to build it now?

A future south Manchester parkway could be built on a line from Handsacre that joins up with the NPR line near Partington etc, where it could be served by trains from further south heading to the northern WCML, Manchester and Liverpool. A Liverpool-Manchester line will likely need access to the WCML North in any case to allow it to displace the route via Bolton etc.

Indeed, a line from Handsacre to the vicinity of Partington passes rather near the airport.

Why does it not? Why could those not all terminate in Piccadilly main train shed once potentially four 200m long Piccadilly-Lime St fasts per hour are added?

I don't really know, but all the scheme documents have the existing fast trains continuing via the CLC.
As far as I can tell they don't want to cut off the services and their proposed scheme has no access to the lines to the south east of Manchester.

 

[Topological]

Why do so many seem so keen for Liverpool not to have good access to Manchester Airport?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Again it’s just a wish list. Manchester’s priority is getting a connection to HS2 by hook or by crook. This scheme is just a way to get it through the back door.

Notice how the Warrington to Liverpool section is listed as phase 2 of the project, despite being the easiest and cheapest section.

But building the Manchester Airport to Manchester connection as part of this scheme also helps trans-Pennine services (not just TPE operated) by speeding up and segregating journeys west of Manchester.
The Warrington to Liverpool section may be seen as the easiest because of the extant railway infrastructure, but there's a lot of redevelopment that needs to be done around Warrington Bank Quay to make it work (possible relocation of the chemical works, serious upgrades to massive improve line speeds etc.).

The reasons you stated are why I hardly ever fly from Manchester. I pretty much always fly from Liverpool.

Makes sense

The whole thread is full of "ifs". Sunak cancelled HS2 north of Birmingham because it was not value for money in the current economic climate. This proposal for a completely new line via a roundabout route has even less potential benefit but is also likely to cost vast sums of money that the UK does not have.

However, it is reasonable to spend a little money to make modest improvements to the infrastructure and passenger services on the 2 existing direct rail lines from Liverpool to Manchester.

Despite its modest network of international scheduled routes, Manchester Airport remains primarily an airport for outgoing holiday flights to the Mediterranean and other tourist destinations. Its further development is unlikely to bring major economic benefits, so the proposed devious route of this new line to serve a station near (but not at) it, is unwarranted.

I respect your right to hold that opinion, but I completely disagree with it.

1) The Styal Line is already overcrowded from Manchester Airport into central Manchester, so a new line would not just provide a HS2 corridor into central Manchester, but an express link for NPR and to relieve local lines to make space for extra profitable south Manchester commuter services. There is also a lot of potential for further rail passenger growth into central Manchester with a high speed tunnel journey time attracting even more modal shift from road transport.

2.) The UK does have the money - it is obtainable by increased taxation in any case, and the projected economic gain means that it will help decrease spending in other areas (including welfare payments to support deprived areas) by providing increased access to highly-paid jobs.

3.) Despite my personal dislike of some of the facilities and poor experiences there, Manchester Airport is growing to provide a sizeable and growing range of long haul connections, which involve passengers reaching it from all over the UK, especially northern England and Scotland. This is turn does increase the demand and pressure for improved intercity travel links to the airport, which NPR/the new L&M is a part of.

 

[Zomboid]

Why do so many seem so keen for Liverpool not to have good access to Manchester Airport?

I would start from the viewpoint of "why should a new railway coming into Manchester from the west (south-ish) not have a station in the Manchester airport area?"

I can't see why you wouldn't want to go that way given the way it's the most important non-London airport and it's well located for the M56 and could easily serve as a railhead for south west Manchester and Cheshire. HS2 having done some design work on a suitable route is a helpful bonus.

 

[frodshamfella]

Me too, particularly as I live very close to Liverpool airport. The problem is, (unless you're travelling to either Dublin or the Isle of Man), that Liverpool really is a 'holiday' airport.

Yes , plus there are cities you can go to in mainland Europe like Madrid , Paris Milan , Rome etc

 

[HSTEd]

I would start from the viewpoint of "why should a new railway coming into Manchester from the west (south-ish) not have a station in the Manchester airport area?"

I can't see why you wouldn't want to go that way given the way it's the most important non-London airport and it's well located for the M56 and could easily serve as a railhead for south west Manchester and Cheshire. HS2 having done some design work on a suitable route is a helpful bonus.

Well its a substantial detour from the primary traffic axis, and forces quite a long tunnel approach to Manchester. You can get a lot closer to Manchester before you have to dive into the tunnel if you chose a more easterly approach.

It also approaches Manchester from quite an annoying angle for connecting to other lines.

 

[MarkyT]

But building the Manchester Airport to Manchester connection as part of this scheme also helps trans-Pennine services (not just TPE operated) by speeding up and segregating journeys west of Manchester.
The Warrington to Liverpool section may be seen as the easiest because of the extant railway infrastructure, but there's a lot of redevelopment that needs to be done around Warrington Bank Quay to make it work (possible relocation of the chemical works, serious upgrades to massive improve line speeds etc.).

The old soap factory closed in 2020, so the whole site is up for redevelopment. I think the low-level tracks are too low at only 4m above sea level right next to a tidal river. Taking advantage of the land availability, I'd consider rebuilding at a higher level, passing over the WCML tracks, which are themselves only 9m above sea level. A straighter alignment on viaduct might be constructed through this area, which would also avoid the tight curves and level crossings on the old route, rejoining the existing route around Fidlers Ferry.

3.) Despite my personal dislike of some of the facilities and poor experiences there, Manchester Airport is growing to provide a sizeable and growing range of long haul connections, which involve passengers reaching it from all over the UK, especially northern England and Scotland. This is turn does increase the demand and pressure for improved intercity travel links to the airport, which NPR/the new L&M is a part of.

In passenger numbers, Manchester airport is the UKs third busiest, similar but just ahead or Stansted. Stansted just beats Manchester however in aircraft movements.

 

[Topological]

Well its a substantial detour from the primary traffic axis, and forces quite a long tunnel approach to Manchester. You can get a lot closer to Manchester before you have to dive into the tunnel if you chose a more easterly approach.

It also approaches Manchester from quite an annoying angle for connecting to other lines.

It is, but the route still takes less time than the CLC.

It provides the connection from Liverpool to Manchester Airport and still gives quicker times to Piccadilly (and hence connections which double back from Piccadilly)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2025 ==

I would start from the viewpoint of "why should a new railway coming into Manchester from the west (south-ish) not have a station in the Manchester airport area?"

I can't see why you wouldn't want to go that way given the way it's the most important non-London airport and it's well located for the M56 and could easily serve as a railhead for south west Manchester and Cheshire. HS2 having done some design work on a suitable route is a helpful bonus.

That is my start point.

It will of course be better when they see sense and restore HS2 as well.

To me, if you can serve the airport and still be in Manchester quicker than the current journey* then that is a good plan. (* Ignoring Victoria, whose fast train eats up opportunities for commuter trains on the Chat Moss and does not give the same range of connections as Piccadilly)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the low-level tracks are too low at only 4m above sea level right next to a tidal river.

I am pleased to see that someone has remembered the point.

 

[HSTEd]

It is, but the route still takes less time than the CLC.

Beating a hopelessly slow existing line is hardly a huge achievement though is it!

To me, if you can serve the airport and still be in Manchester quicker than the current journey* then that is a good plan. (* Ignoring Victoria, whose fast train eats up opportunities for commuter trains on the Chat Moss and does not give the same range of connections as Piccadilly)

Well we can achieve the same result with a retimetabling exercise to put a Liverpool via Chat Moss train back into Piccadilly.
I don't think its really sensible to compare times to the CLC based on an entirely arbitrary timetabling decision!

Indeed I even travelled on a TPE train fairly recently that switched from the CLC to the Chat Moss to make up time on the South Transpennine, due to a crew member in danger of timing out.

A new line has to be able to beat the best we can do now, and do it convincingly, or you will not be able to make the case to spend the many many billions this will take.

 

[Topological]

Beating a hopelessly slow existing line is hardly a huge achievement though is it!

Well we can achieve the same result with a retimetabling exercise to put a Liverpool via Chat Moss train back into Piccadilly.
I don't think its really sensible to compare times to the CLC based on an entirely arbitrary timetabling decision!

Indeed I even travelled on a TPE train fairly recently that switched from the CLC to the Chat Moss to make up time on the South Transpennine, due to a crew member in danger of timing out.

A new line has to be able to beat the best we can do now, and do it convincingly, or you will not be able to make the case to spend the many many billions this will take.

The key here is that you are pushing the CLC train through Castlefield and Platform 13/14 at Piccadilly.

I appreciate that you can use money to deliver Platforms 15 and 16, as well as other work on the Castlefield corridor, but it will still not produce the level of capacity uplift this proposal can.

That is before you add back in the benefits provided by stoppers that are unlocked by the fasts not being there. The stoppers would be to Victoria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A new line has to be able to beat the best we can do now, and do it convincingly, or you will not be able to make the case to spend the many many billions this will take.

Thus wholly missing the point of a new line.

If it was purely about speed, a new line would be unnecessary. It's in effect four-tracking both the CLC and Chat Moss.

 

[Zomboid]

Well its a substantial detour from the primary traffic axis, and forces quite a long tunnel approach to Manchester. You can get a lot closer to Manchester before you have to dive into the tunnel if you chose a more easterly approach.

It also approaches Manchester from quite an annoying angle for connecting to other lines.

You mean in via Stretford Meadows? Given the nature of the conurbation and how close it is to the centre, I assume there's a good reason why that has largely not been built on to date. Probably because being "meadows" it's a flood plain. Not that that makes it impossible, but I doubt that starting a tunnel in a floodplain is simplicity itself.

 

[Grimsby town]

A south manchester parkway probably is a good idea for a London-North West HSL.
But is there any strong reason to build it now?

A future south Manchester parkway could be built on a line from Handsacre that joins up with the NPR line near Partington etc, where it could be served by trains from further south heading to the northern WCML, Manchester and Liverpool. A Liverpool-Manchester line will likely need access to the WCML North in any case to allow it to displace the route via Bolton etc.

Indeed, a line from Handsacre to the vicinity of Partington passes rather near the airport.

It could approach Manchester from the west but you're then disrupting a whole new group of people. Ripping up and starting again seems fairly pointless for fairly marginal benefits to journey times from Liverpool to Manchester. I'm pretty ambivalent to the route but I can understand the unwillingness to start investigating a completely new route.

 

[Nottingham59]

It could approach Manchester from the west but you're then disrupting a whole new group of people.

The Chat Moss route used to be four track all the way from Eccles Station Junction out to the edge of the Manchester conurbation. It could be three or four-tracked again relatively easily with minimal disruption, leaving only a short tunnel needed to get under the river and bypass Castlefield to get to Piccadilly and on to the Guide Bridge corridor.