Fantasy: Cornbrook as an Alternative to Oxford Road

[Topological]

With the plan to work on Manchester Oxford Road to simplify the arrangement to 3 platforms, there is a lot of disruption to the Castlefield Corridor to come. This thread is for the more sepculative/fantasy ideas.

The EMR/TPE is close behind and already suffers slowness through Deansgate, so could call at a new Cornbrook station. Passengers from the stoppers can either transfer to the EMR/TPE or Metrolink at Cornbrook. Would give connectivity to Salford Quays etc as well.

The new Cornbrook could be designed as a large island with a central bay for the CLC so that people can easily transfer to the other services in both directions. It would need some additional land, but there seems to be a strip between the existing line and the nearest street. There is a lot of development going on which could provide local use for the station too.

Less conflicting moves in Castlefield would seem a big plus

 

[Bletchleyite]

With reference to Old Oak Common, I don't think the idea of a service to Manchester that stops a couple of miles short of Manchester would be seen as even remotely acceptable.

The only way I can see trams taking over even part of the Warrington-Manchester stopper would be if the CLC was converted to Merseyrail/Metrolink meeting at Warrington, with the fasts diverted onto the Fiddlers Ferry line.

If I was wanting to keep that heavy rail and get rid of the bay at Oxford Road, I'd consider building a west to north curve onto Ordsall and sending them to Victoria, but even that is somewhat pie in the sky.

 

[slipdigby]

Cornbrook's a constrained site these days. Stick it further west by Pomona and deliver it as part of the Old Trafford regeneration and you might be onto something.

But terminating anything there from the west wouldn't work.

 

[cle]

I think it the Met was offered as a free transfer, it might catch on. After all, you can get to town, Quays, Airport, Sale/Alty, Chorlton etc... but we just aren't that integrated.

And people ultimately don't want to change more than necessary. I could only see it working if it was part of a high frequency service and the Met transfer. Could also be a PIXC option, if useful - given Castlefield is full. And if office development ever crept there fully.

 

[Topological]

I think it the Met was offered as a free transfer, it might catch on. After all, you can get to town, Quays, Airport, Sale/Alty, Chorlton etc... but we just aren't that integrated.

And people ultimately don't want to change more than necessary. I could only see it working if it was part of a high frequency service and the Met transfer. Could also be a PIXC option, if useful - given Castlefield is full. And if office development ever crept there fully.

It would be interesting to know if a 15-minute frequency would be possible on Cornbrook* to Warrington, or even Cornbrook to Irlam alternating with Cornbrook to Liverpool Lime Street.

Manchester is moving towards the "Bee Network" with associated attempts at integrated ticketing so the idea of Metrolink integration is not that far-fetched.

 

[slipdigby]

I think it the Met was offered as a free transfer, it might catch on. After all, you can get to town, Quays, Airport, Sale/Alty, Chorlton etc... but we just aren't that integrated.

Big issue is that by Cornbrook, trams are packed into/out of town. Therefore you'd have to deliver additional capacity on the light rail side of the equation which may be equally as problematic.

It would be interesting to know if a 15-minute frequency would be possible on Cornbrook* to Warrington, or even Cornbrook to Irlam alternating with Cornbrook to Liverpool Lime Street.

4 all stops tram-trains per hour between Trafford Park East and Glazebrook East (suggested turnback) have been modelled by a 3rd party as deliverable in a standard hour, assuming you lose the existing Oxford Road-Warrington Central/Liverpool Lime Street stopper(s).

This would however drive the need to backfill services at Padgate (and in a lesser sense Glazebrook) which would require infrastructure spend if we're now extending the existing Liverpool-Warrington Central trains to Birchwood. Alternatively, I seem to remember that it was suggested that you could probably get away with running two of these tram-trains through to Warrington Central to replicate what we have now, although again this would drive infrastructure spend at Central which could be difficult to deliver.

East of Trafford Park into the city centre however, things get very tight from a timetabling perspective, and will remain so as long as the freight terminals are in place. Assumption for the above exercise was that tram-trains would join new build infra here to Pomona/Cornbrook before joining the existing light rail network.

 

[Topological]

Big issue is that by Cornbrook, trams are packed into/out of town. Therefore you'd have to deliver additional capacity on the light rail side of the equation which may be equally as problematic.


4 all stops tram-trains per hour between Trafford Park East and Glazebrook East (suggested turnback) have been modelled by a 3rd party as deliverable in a standard hour, assuming you lose the existing Oxford Road-Warrington Central/Liverpool Lime Street stopper(s).

This would however drive the need to backfill services at Padgate (and in a lesser sense Glazebrook) which would require infrastructure spend if we're now extending the existing Liverpool-Warrington Central trains to Birchwood. Alternatively, I seem to remember that it was suggested that you could probably get away with running two of these tram-trains through to Warrington Central to replicate what we have now, although again this would drive infrastructure spend at Central which could be difficult to deliver.

East of Trafford Park into the city centre however, things get very tight from a timetabling perspective, and will remain so as long as the freight terminals are in place. Assumption for the above exercise was that tram-trains would join new build infra here to Pomona/Cornbrook before joining the existing light rail network.

Thanks for that.

On the one hand tram-trains have the ability to penetrate the main Metrolink network, but on the other hand they require electrification of the CLC. The Cornbrook Viaduct on Metrolink is already at capacity and so Metrolink is also looking for new solutions.

Ideally, Manchester would be biting the bullet and deciding what is going through a tunnel under the city. That decision will influence what should be done with the CLC and many other routes. However, that is a whole higher level of spending.

The Cornbrook solution I mention is more of a sticking plaster as well. It takes two trains away from the junction west of Deansgate, but that is a drop in the ocean.

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for that.

On the one hand tram-trains have the ability to penetrate the main Metrolink network, but on the other hand they require electrification of the CLC.

Diesel tram trains are used in Germany, so electrification is not necessarily required.

But in any case, 750Vdc electrification rated for trams to Warrington will not be hugely expensive if the railway closes for the conversion.

 

[slipdigby]

Thanks for that.

On the one hand tram-trains have the ability to penetrate the main Metrolink network, but on the other hand they require electrification of the CLC. The Cornbrook Viaduct on Metrolink is already at capacity and so Metrolink is also looking for new solutions.

Ideally, Manchester would be biting the bullet and deciding what is going through a tunnel under the city. That decision will influence what should be done with the CLC and many other routes. However, that is a whole higher level of spending.

The Cornbrook solution I mention is more of a sticking plaster as well. It takes two trains away from the junction west of Deansgate, but that is a drop in the ocean.

Current thinking across quite a few putative and under construction tram-train schemes is OHL+battery so no need to electrify (although that is still the longer term ambition). Plus of course there's always the Zwickau/Nordhausen approach to these issues.

The alleged hard limit back in the day was 64 tph over Cornbrook viaduct before things start falling over, but this was pre-Deansgate Castlefield remodel. The big constraints are once you're on street. Given that there's currently only 40tph over the viaduct at present, and assuming the Trafford Parks get extended up to Crumpsall as planned to free up the centre platform, you could maybe make the operational case for terminating 4 CLC tram trains per hour at Deansgate-Castlefield. Probably not great for those currently using Oxford Road to access the University, but that would have to be weighed against an uplift to 4tph for stations with very poor (0.5tph) existing service levels.

And whilst it's only 2tph on Castlefield, the quantified value of these paths is very significant so you're not barking up the wrong tree!

 

[HSTEd]

Converting the CLC to Metrolink largely eliminates one of the flat junctions in that rat's nest of flat junctions.

Only a comparative handful of freights left - and even that goes away if the St Helens freight depot goes forward.

 

[Bevan Price]

Bee Link may hope to get to Warrington Central, but they will have a big fight to get there -- withdrawing the fast services on the CLC would be highly unpopular, and there would be lots of resistance.

(And don't suggest extra fasts from Warrington Bank Quay; that adds another 10 or so minutes to the journey time - and Bank Quay is much less convenient than Warrington Central for most passengers.)

 

[The Planner]

Converting the CLC to Metrolink largely eliminates one of the flat junctions in that rat's nest of flat junctions.

Only a comparative handful of freights left - and even that goes away if the St Helens freight depot goes forward.

Until Trafford Park closes, and there is no certainty of that, freight will be using the Manchester end.

 

[HST43257]

Bee Link may hope to get to Warrington Central, but they will have a big fight to get there -- withdrawing the fast services on the CLC would be highly unpopular, and there would be lots of resistance.

(And don't suggest extra fasts from Warrington Bank Quay; that adds another 10 or so minutes to the journey time - and Bank Quay is much less convenient than Warrington Central for most passengers.)

As far as I’m concerned the CLC fasts stay until NPR via WBQ exists. Then you can fully Metrolink and Merseyrail with a Warrington Central split.

 

[Meerkat]

Pomona seems a useful interchange if the tram capacity is available (some must get off to change for Media City etc??), but much longer would the journey be - adding in a change and the trams go horribly slowly.

 

[Topological]

Pomona seems a useful interchange if the tram capacity is available (some must get off to change for Media City etc??), but much longer would the journey be - adding in a change and the trams go horribly slowly.

I think it depends which part of Manchester someone is heading to. The trains on Castlefield are not going fast.

My feeling was that if a station was being designed to reverse the CLC stoppers it would be built with a bay and the "fasts" would then call so that passengers from the stopper could get onto the fast to get to Piccadilly if that was their destination.

For shopping in Manchester, or most of the entertainment centres, Metrolink would be faster.

To get to Salford Quays or The Trafford Centre, a station for interchange would be much quicker. Here again the fasts calling would give options for people from the East to travel.

 

[Bevan Price]

As far as I’m concerned the CLC fasts stay until NPR via WBQ exists. Then you can fully Metrolink and Merseyrail with a Warrington Central split.

That does not solve the problem that Warrington Central is much more convenient than Bank Quay for much of Warrington. (And the latter also suffers from mega-expensive WCML parking charges)