I'm a bit confused. If there's currently 2tph fast and 1tph local on the CLC line, and the proposal to keep the 2tph fast on the CLC, where do the extra 2-3tph local trains come from? Does that mean the capacity for them is there already?
Except that for timetabling/pathing purposes additional tracks would be much more useful towards the middle of the route. A new line with an independent route in/out of Manchester also avoids it's timetable having to fit in with the Manchester tangle that currently causes so many problems.
It definitely isn't a four track alignment to east of Patricroft. It's clearly been built over. It'd be very disruptive to four track too. Look at TRU to the east of Huddersfield. Deighton is going to be closed for over a year to be rebuilt and tracks added. Is closing Eccles for that long acceptable? It's significantly busier than Deigton and likely to get even more so in the coming years from the additional high rise residential buildings.
In order for the line to be acceptable to the public, it has to be more attractive than the status quo.
I would have thought only at the Piccadilly end of the tunnel?
I think you might have the Sunday times there, with fewer trains and longer connections in Manchester (the direct train is very similar to weekday times).
...but it was supposed to have passive provision for a through service. Its failings (and virtues) deserve a topic on their own.
The Victorians established routes through the best geography available; since then populations and settlements alongside their lines have mostly ballooned, hence the need for their increased use and enhancement
The specification for the Manchester spur was more of a 200-230km route, so perhaps wouldn't be "over specified" in the way that one might suggest the trunk was. And even if it's only the alignment, a load of work will have been done showing that it's suitable, which won't have been done for a different route (which may turn out the not be useable anyhow).
The Chat Moss line was never more than 2 tracks through Newton le Willows, Earlestown and across the Sankey Brook viaduct.
Only for a Skelmersdale service. The route has never been intended as a Liverpool Manchester route. Its too slow for a start and would run in to Merseyrail services at one end. How anyone can accuse Manchester Airport as having headline grabbing glamour is beyond me.
There are so many HS2 parallels it’s slightly unnerving. Capacity being the requirement yet speed being the focus, no room for 4-tracking existing routes, the route being seemingly contentious (IMO the great being the enemy of the good), affordability concerns…
I think some people just do not want to accept that the economic geography has changed greatly from when the railways were built.
Link to Hansard from 2020
To a little west of Patricroft, in fact — look at the horrible kink at Patricroft resulting from the way the quadrupling was done. How much real commuter and local traffic is there on the Chat Moss line except at the Liverpool end, where a significant element of quadrupling has already been restored? Give the Chat Moss line the sort of improvements at the Liverpool and Manchester ends suggested for the new schemes and you'd have a time unbeatable by a new-build glorified inter-urban-area-with-airport-deviation line even if you spent a lot of money easing those very tight curves at Warrington and raising the line above possible future flood level. And (east of the Liverpool quad track) do what the LNER did between York and Scarborough in the 1930s and just close the intermediate stations. There'd be plenty of capacity for fast trains then!
Possibly. Or maybe HS2 has altered the national psyche somewhat, to be more suspicious, cynical and cautious towards major infrastructure projects.
There is already a 4tph Liverpool to Manchester intercity service, with 2tph to Victoria and 2tph to Oxford Rd/Piccadilly. The Victoria service time can easily be cut to 30 minutes by removing the intermediate stop, and an 8-10 coach train could be used. The CLC line service time can be reduced to 35-40 minutes by electrification and reduction in the number of intermediate stops. There should also be capacity for a 2tph stopping service on each line, provided emus are used, with 2tph extending non-stop from Piccadilly to Manchester Airport.
Yes... but the direct train is still 1:30
Given the full route isn’t expected to be operational until the mid-2040s, what would you propose as an alternative solution for 20-25 years time?
Perhaps. The only issue with a higher viaduct is that you then have to get back to ground level before the bridge over the Mersey east of Arpley sidings, unless you replace the Wilderspool Causeway road overbridge as well.
The M602 running alongside until Regent Road Roundabout will make that quite difficult, and west of Patricroft the alignment isn't exactly stable enough for more than 90mph. You'd need at least a nearly 7 mile long tunnel from near the Brookhouse estate to Piccadilly to make it work (which would pass quite close to the Guardian telephone exchange, with a huge network of underground tunnels radiating away from the site).
Precisely.
Makes sense. I imagine it's because Stansted has a higher percentage of narrowbody aircraft takeoffs operated by low cost carriers, and Manchester has more full service carrier widebodies on average year round.
That's precisely what I'd do; drop the road to ground level and build the new rail alignment over it. The steel truss Arpley Bridge, crossing the Mersey at a very low level would also be replaced by the new elevated route. Slutyers Lane overbridge would also be removed with the road dropping to ground level.
Not sure why a tunnel would be necessary there. I think the route would more likely follow the old surface alignment, gradually climbing through Latchford, then crossing the ship canal via the old viaduct (no doubt at least partially renewed).
Makes sense. More pax per flight at Manchester.
Moving all fast trains onto the Chat Moss route, and introducing a 4 fast, 2 semi fast and 2 from Chester schedule that just about enables all stations to have 2tph. Then extending the Hunts Cross trains all the way to Oxford Road.
I would make my suggested improvements by 2030 and then monitor the situation for 5 years to 2035. If traffic growth was high at that time, suggesting the need for major new infrastructure in due course, a new line would need to be considered, but I would keep its alignment as short as possible and thus entirely north of the River Mersey.
