Grade separation around the Castlefield Corridor, Manchester

[geoffk]

Would it be possible to fit such a layout in the available space? As I said earlier I have no local knowledge, but your plan looks like it may be too big to fit.

The Ordsall Lane dive-under is a nice idea but there are several road bridges to negotiate, some of which go over the railway and some under. Some might need rebuilding and even then getting the gradients right would be a challenge.

 

[30907]

The Ordsall Lane dive-under is a nice idea but there are several road bridges to negotiate, some of which go over the railway and some under. Some might need rebuilding and even then getting the gradients right would be a challenge.

Discussed in post #16: a flyover with relatively easy gradients affects 3 overbridges, of which one is on a major road and would need a significant diversion. There would, of course, be a substantial new stretch of railway viaduct.

 

[B&I]

Indeed.

Given the growth of Warrington over the past 30 years I'd say that its links beyond Manchester should be enhanced not reduced.

The way the railways have developed in recent years is a reflection of the way northern towns have 'developed" over recent years. Towns which should be considered substantial in their own right have been economically decimated and left to a sort of laissez-faire afterlife as residual housing for low paid workers in the few cities which have retained any degree of activity. The same attitude to the regions which has created this process has also meant that the absolute minimum has been spent on infrastructure in them, leaving large conurbations dependent on unreliable, low speed, low capacity but high cost public transport systems.

Warrington has managed to retain a much healthier economy than most towns in the north. But because the country is run by people who.cannot understand how things work and aren't interested in trying to learn, it faces having its regional transport links downgraded to the sort of thing other countries would consider fir for a medium-sized suburb

 

[B&I]

See posts #12 and 16. Probably easier than Castlefield, but there are two or three road overbridges in the way, one of which is fairly major.

What I had in mind was adding to the works discussed in those posts with a longer flyover, heading east to.provide additional grade separation where Chat Moss and Ordsall Chord join. What additional obstructions would there be to that ?

 

[B&I]

Where precisely is there to go beyond Manchester on that line?

And even those destinations could be supported via services to Warrington Bank-Quay via Newton-le-Willows.

With electrification of the northern Liverpool-Manchester route the case for through services on the via Warrington line has kind of melted away.

Manchester Airport, Sheffield and points south / east, as per current services from Warrington Central via the CLC ? The world does not end at Manchester. And how will those additional services fit on to the already crowded Chat Moss line ?

The long-term solution should be a bypass line from Liverpool through Warrington and Manchester to Yorkshire, which would take long distance services away from both Chat Moss and CLC

 

[B&I]

So warrington-beyond Manchester trains must run through to Liverpool?

nationalrail.co.uk for random periods during weekdays already seems to send you via Warrington Bank Quay some of the time if you are going Warrington[All Stations] to Manchester[All Stations]

The route is hardly unusably slow, and in return for a slight slowing down of journeys to places beyond Manchester, they would get much more usable services to Manchester and likely Liverpool.

Assuming that, in the absence of any other improvement to the CLC, its overall capacity would remain similar, how would replacing current through services to Piccadilly and beyond with services which stop in mid-air somewhere north of Deansgate be more useable ?

And what if the line is tramified ? Would a tram that is likely to take about twice the time of the current fast trains between Manchester and Warrington, with a fraction of the seats and no toilet, be more useable ?

Incidentally, who said anything about services to Warrington from points east having to run through to Liverpool ? Bit of a Freudian slip.there from you ?

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester Airport, Sheffield and points south / east, as per current services from Warrington Central via the CLC ? The world does not end at Manchester. And how will those additional services fit on to the already crowded Chat Moss line ?

The elimination of the CLC route traffic will make full blown Grade Separation of the Castlefield Corridor, and the limiting part of traffic on the Chat Moss is not really the line itself.
The heavy rail paths currently used on the CLC will be available to increase traffic on the Chat Moss line.
Especially since they could potentially use high performance electrics or bi-modes.

The long-term solution should be a bypass line from Liverpool through Warrington and Manchester to Yorkshire, which would take long distance services away from both Chat Moss and CLC

And how many tens of billions and decades do you want to wait without a solution for that to happen?

Assuming that, in the absence of any other improvement to the CLC, its overall capacity would remain similar, how would replacing current through services to Piccadilly and beyond with services which stop in mid-air somewhere north of Deansgate be more useable ?

Why would it's capacity remain similar?
If nothing else the rolling stock would have considerably shorter stopping distances and faster accelerations due to having all axles motored and magnetic track brakes.

And what if the line is tramified ? Would a tram that is likely to take about twice the time of the current fast trains between Manchester and Warrington, with a fraction of the seats and no toilet, be more useable ?

Would it take twice as long?
Or are you just inventing numbers from thin air?

Warrington Central to Manchester Oxford Road is 26km or so.
The non stop Warrington-MCO takes 20 minutes to do that, which is a top speed just below 50mph, so a non stop tram, even a slow one would be able to manage it.
A 60mph tram or tram train with it's enormous acceleration advantage over a low performance diesel unit will be able to stop at various places en route and still match it.

And it will definitely be way faster than the 40 minute trains that actually stop at most of the stations on the line.
Also trams can have toilets...... Alstom and Stadler even have them in their catalogues.

Incidentally, who said anything about services to Warrington from points east having to run through to Liverpool ? Bit of a Freudian slip.there from you ?

Claiming that Warrington Bank Quay is not a useful station for trains to Manchester is the asme as insisting that.

 

[B&I]

I do wonder if it would be an option, if the plan to run the Hope Valley stopper via Stockport is enacted, to join that to a service from Liverpool instead? It would remove through journeys past Sheffield and make reaching there slower, but would have an upside of making the Peak District very accessible from Liverpool and Warrington, and possibly being less overcrowded if suitable units are used.

Am I right in thinking that running to the Hopr Valley, at least via Reddish, would re-create the sort of conflicts at the Piccadilly throat that ex-CLC.TPEs were moved to Victoria to avoid ? If you want to run them on to another mostly diesel route, Buxton might be a better bet

 

[Bletchleyite]

Am I right in thinking that running to the Hopr Valley, at least via Reddish, would re-create the sort of conflicts at the Piccadilly throat that ex-CLC.TPEs were moved to Victoria to avoid ? If you want to run them on to another mostly diesel route, Buxton might be a better bet

It was a suggestion that could be used to retain a route to Sheffield (and open up other journey opportunities) only in the event of the proposal to reroute the Hope Valley stopper to run via Stockport taking place.

 

[B&I]

Grade separation of Castlefield Junction is surely technically feasible - by the standards of large civil engineering projects this is pretty small beer!

The 1893 viaduct could be repaired or replaced to enable it to carry the Metrolink line. Personally I think it is an eyesore in its present dilapidated state, but if the heritage lobby insisted a replacement could replicate the original design. Or the Metrolink line could be ramped down to ground level and pass beneath the main line instead of over it. It is just a question of cost versus benefit.

Yes. If the eastbound track of the CLC line were rerouted over the "birdcage bridge" that currently carries the Metrolink line over the main line, the simplest route for the ramp down would go through the current Deansgate station building and obliterate the eastbound platform, joining the main line at Oxford Road.

Removal of the Deansgate stop would also increase the capacity of the junction in the westbound direction.

No, but partial grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction, in the way you suggested, would undoubtedly be cheaper than grade separation of Castlefield Junction. And, although Castlefield is the busier of the two, the Ordsall Lane scheme would increase capacity/reduce congestion even if Castlefield remained flat. The current interactions between the successive flat junctions increase congestion. So there is a case for doing Ordsall Lane before Castlefield.

But, with the current timetable, the costly new Ordsall Lane flyover would only carry 3tph - the Liverpool to Scarborough, Liverpool to Edinburgh and Chester to Leeds. It might also carry the Liverpool to Calder Valley service, which was in the Northern franchise agreement but has proved infeasible over the current infrastructure. However, the N Wales to Piccadilly/Manchester Airport, Cumbria to Airport via Golborne, and Liverpool to Crewe services would still conflict with the 4tph from Castlefield to the Windsor Link, on the remaining flat junction at Ordsall Lane.

To get maximum benefit from the partial grade separation, all services from Preston to Piccadilly should be routed via Bolton, and all services from the Chat Moss line should go to Victoria.

How about re-routing the Cumbria services via Bolton (and doing something to improve the Southport-airport service to maintain a good airport link from Wigan, re-routing North Wales services to Victoria and replacing the Crewe-Chester shuttle with a service from Ringway via Crewe and Chester to the north Wales coast ? Now electrification is finished, is there any need for any services from Chat Moss to Wigan ?

 

[B&I]

I said if paths can be found on Chat Moss then it should be run that way, if not then it should continue on the exisiting route but stop at Deansgate to provide 4tph CLC service from there. This would still remove 3tph from the Castlefield corridor. I think the Chat Moss line needs a passing loop between Newton-Le-Willows and Manchester. Warrington would retain a service to Manchester Airport from Warrington Bank Quay. The Liverpool-Manchester Airport EMU via Chat Moss only takes longer because it makes extra stops between Piccadilly and the Airport.

My main concern with Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16 is the risk that running 16tph through it will push the bottleneck along and important delays from other lines. Consider the CLC stoppers, with the rebuild of Oxford Road as per the Transport Works Act Order for the Castlefield Corridor, they could no longer terminate at Oxford Road. Where do they run to? There isn't a good option. It would have to be either the Airport or a service from Stockport that currently terminates at Piccadilly. All of which are about an hour long, operated by EMUs or both. Any new services through platform 15 and 16 would need to go to be linked with a Stockport service too, because Manchester Airport station is at capacity and without building a flyover anything through Ardwick would block the station throat. CLC passengers would be better off with 2tph fast and 2tph slow into a Deansgate station annex than the current unreliable mess.

This emphasises how absurd the failure to electrify the CLC (and indeed the other diesel islands between Manchester, Liverpool and Preston) has been

 

[B&I]

The elimination of the CLC route traffic will make full blown Grade Separation of the Castlefield Corridor, and the limiting part of traffic on the Chat Moss is not really the line itself.
The heavy rail paths currently used on the CLC will be available to increase traffic on the Chat Moss line.
Especially since they could potentially use high performance electrics or bi-modes.



And how many tens of billions and decades do you want to wait without a solution for that to happen?


Why would it's capacity remain similar?
If nothing else the rolling stock would have considerably shorter stopping distances and faster accelerations due to having all axles motored and magnetic track brakes.



Would it take twice as long?
Or are you just inventing numbers from thin air?

Warrington Central to Manchester Oxford Road is 26km or so.
The non stop Warrington-MCO takes 20 minutes to do that, which is a top speed just below 50mph, so a non stop tram, even a slow one would be able to manage it.
A 60mph tram or tram train with it's enormous acceleration advantage over a low performance diesel unit will be able to stop at various places en route and still match it.

And it will definitely be way faster than the 40 minute trains that actually stop at most of the stations on the line.
Also trams can have toilets...... Alstom and Stadler even have them in their catalogues.


Claiming that Warrington Bank Quay is not a useful station for trains to Manchester is the asme as insisting that.

Without electrification, are new DMUs likely to reduce journey time substantially compared to current ones ?

How are trams likely to cover the 26 km to Warrington in less time than they currently take to travel 16 km to Altrincham ?

 

[B&I]

It was a suggestion that could be used to retain a route to Sheffield (and open up other journey opportunities) only in the event of the proposal to reroute the Hope Valley stopper to run via Stockport taking place.

Crumbs Almighty. Liverpool (or Warrington) to Sheffield on a stopper ? It's slow enough as things stand

 

[HSTEd]

How are trams likely to cover the 26 km to Warrington in less time than they currently take to travel 16 km to Altrincham ?

Because they won't be stopping at every lamp post.

If they stick to the current stopping patterns they can largely match or beat the current journey times.
The 16km from Altrincham into the centre has 11 or so stops.
The line to Warrington would not necessarily have that many, despite it's greater length.

 

[Greybeard33]

How about re-routing the Cumbria services via Bolton (and doing something to improve the Southport-airport service to maintain a good airport link from Wigan, re-routing North Wales services to Victoria and replacing the Crewe-Chester shuttle with a service from Ringway via Crewe and Chester to the north Wales coast ? Now electrification is finished, is there any need for any services from Chat Moss to Wigan ?

The Southport service goes to Alderley Edge via Stockport, not to the Airport.

No chance of getting an extra service across the northern throat of Crewe. The only way to run a Chester to Airport service via Crewe would be to divert the S Wales to Piccadilly service via the Airport instead of via Stockport, and portion work between Manchester and Crewe. The Chester portion could then be extended to N Wales in place of the current TfW service via Warrington.

But on another thread you have been arguing against long distance services to the Airport. Now you seem to be suggesting the Airport should cannibalise Stockport services!

I agree that, if an Ordsall Lane flyover is built, services from Wigan to Manchester should no longer be routed via Golborne. That roundabout route originally started to enable EMUs to be used, before Bolton was electrified.

 

[30907]

What I had in mind was adding to the works discussed in those posts with a longer flyover, heading east to.provide additional grade separation where Chat Moss and Ordsall Chord join. What additional obstructions would there be to that ?

Apologies, I was confusing my curves and chords!
Yes, once we are spending this amount of money - the complication would be if you wanted to provide Salford Central with platforms on all routes, when the westbound Chat Moss would need to be at a higher level and that would extend the viaduct almost to Victoria if it was graded for freight.

However, there may be a solution:
I think you would need to keep the existing route in service during the construction period, so you could decide to keep it permanently for freight and design the flyovers with steeper gradients.
And going down that road you could make the eastbound track a diveunder and thus save rebuilding Oldfield Road overbridge.
(I know the biomass etc would clog the junction for several minutes, but that is six paths each way a day, far fewer than Deansgate)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that, if an Ordsall Lane flyover is built, services from Wigan to Manchester should no longer be routed via Golborne. That roundabout route originally started to enable EMUs to be used, before Bolton was electrified.

And even pre-1998 when the Barrows and Windermeres did run via Wigan, it was via Bolton and Westhoughton, not Golborne.

 

[B&I]

Because they won't be stopping at every lamp post.

If they stick to the current stopping patterns they can largely match or beat the current journey times.
The 16km from Altrincham into the centre has 11 or so stops.
The line to Warrington would not necessarily have that many, despite it's greater length.

I count 9 stations between Warrington Central and Deansgate (not inclusive).

Surely if there are long stretches where the tram is not slowing for stops, it will be at a disadvantage compared to the faster top speed (but poorer acceleration) of a DMU like a 158 or 195 ?

 

[B&I]

The Southport service goes to Alderley Edge via Stockport, not to the Airport.

No chance of getting an extra service across the northern throat of Crewe. The only way to run a Chester to Airport service via Crewe would be to divert the S Wales to Piccadilly service via the Airport instead of via Stockport, and portion work between Manchester and Crewe. The Chester portion could then be extended to N Wales in place of the current TfW service via Warrington.

But on another thread you have been arguing against long distance services to the Airport. Now you seem to be suggesting the Airport should cannibalise Stockport services!

I agree that, if an Ordsall Lane flyover is built, services from Wigan to Manchester should no longer be routed via Golborne. That roundabout route originally started to enable EMUs to be used, before Bolton was electrified.

Thank you for putting me right about where the Southport service goes.

In another thread I am arguing against prioritising services to the airport when capacity is limited and intercity and commuter services are suffering as a result. I have now had to state this several times thanks to persistent attempts to misrepresent my argument as some personal crusade against Manchester Airport. Even I get bored repeating myself this much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I count 9 stations between Warrington Central and Deansgate (not inclusive).

Surely if there are long stretches where the tram is not slowing for stops, it will be at a disadvantage compared to the faster top speed (but poorer acceleration) of a DMU like a 158 or 195 ?

195s accelerate almost like trams. I reckon if you put 195s on the CLC stoppers you'd take 10 minutes off.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely if there are long stretches where the tram is not slowing for stops, it will be at a disadvantage compared to the faster top speed (but poorer acceleration) of a DMU like a 158 or 195 ?

The line is only 30mph until you reach the Cornbrook metrolink flyover. So its probably no faster than the tram lines on that section.

THe majority of the line appears to be 85mph, so a 60mph tram (ie a tram train) will have a significant speed disadvantage.
So if both the tram and train run completely non stop and have instantaneous acceleration - the tram will cover a kilometre in 44 seconds, whereas the train will take only 26 seconds.
So at most we are looking at 18 seconds per kilometre.

There are ~23 route kilometres between that flyover and Warrington Central, so we lose a maximum of about 6 minutes 12 seconds.

A tram/tram-train can easily have 11.7kW per tonne.
Even the 195 manages only ~8.8 and that is engine kilowatts and not motor kilowatts, so the disparity is larger.

Apparently starting acceleration on a Class 195 is 0.83m/s/s, whereas a tram train might manage ~1.1m/s/s. By the time you approach 50+mph your tram train will be accelerating

Also worth noting that the line is not all 85mph from Cornbrook to Warrington Central, at least one mile is done at 75mph between Padgate and Warrington, and there is a 65mph segment in the vicinity of Padgate (according to the sectional appendix).

That mile will lop at least six seconds off, and the acceleration and braking for that 60mph segment (which does not affect the tram/tram-train at all!) will hurt you further.


So you might lose a few minutes on the fastest train (probably less than 5) that runs non-stop, but your stopping trains will become drastically faster.

EDIT: The Down Line (in direction Warrington) has an extra nearly two miles of 75mph running that the Up Line does not, again near Padgate.
So that is going to hurt you a bit more.

 

[B&I]

Apologies, I was confusing my curves and chords!
Yes, once we are spending this amount of money - the complication would be if you wanted to provide Salford Central with platforms on all routes, when the westbound Chat Moss would need to be at a higher level and that would extend the viaduct almost to Victoria if it was graded for freight.

However, there may be a solution:
I think you would need to keep the existing route in service during the construction period, so you could decide to keep it permanently for freight and design the flyovers with steeper gradients.
And going down that road you could make the eastbound track a diveunder and thus save rebuilding Oldfield Road overbridge.
(I know the biomass etc would clog the junction for several minutes, but that is six paths each way a day, far fewer than Deansgate)

I had envisaged the flyover would feed trains into Salford Central at the current track level to serve the rebuilt Chat Moss / Ordsall platforms whenever they get done, but I have to accept that I've no idea of the technical feasibility of that.

Severing the 2 east-west lines which enabled freight to bypass central Manchester (via Heywood and Tiviot Dale) does now seem rather short-sighted.

 

[B&I]

The line is only 30mph until you reach the Cornbrook metrolink flyover. So its probably no faster than the tram lines on that section.

THe majority of the line appears to be 85mph, so a 60mph tram (ie a tram train) will have a significant speed disadvantage.
So if both the tram and train run completely non stop and have instantaneous acceleration - the tram will cover a kilometre in 44 seconds, whereas the train will take only 26 seconds.
So at most we are looking at 18 seconds per kilometre.

There are ~23 route kilometres between that flyover and Warrington Central, so we lose a maximum of about 6 minutes 12 seconds.

A tram/tram-train can easily have 11.7kW per tonne.
Even the 195 manages only ~8.8 and that is engine kilowatts and not motor kilowatts, so the disparity is larger.

Apparently starting acceleration on a Class 195 is 0.83m/s/s, whereas a tram train might manage ~1.1m/s/s

Also worth noting that the line is not all 85mph from Cornbrook to Warrington Central, at least one mile is done at 75mph between Padgate and Warrington, and there is a 60mph segment in the vicinity of Padgate (according to the sectional appendix).

That mile will lop at least six seconds off, and the acceleration and braking for that 60mph segment (which does not affect the tram/tram-train at all!) will hurt you further.


So you might lose a few minutes on the fastest train (probably less than 5) that runs non-stop, but your stopping trains will become drastically faster.

At the risk of shifting the goalposts somewhat, decades of underinvestment in the heavy rail.network round Manchester has rather helped the tramification argument

 

[Greybeard33]

195s accelerate almost like trams. I reckon if you put 195s on the CLC stoppers you'd take 10 minutes off.

Or you could make the CLC stoppers all stops rather than skip-stop. That would give Trafford Park, Humphrey Park, Chassen Road and Glazebrook 2tph instead of 1tp2h.

 

[30907]

I had envisaged the flyover would feed trains into Salford Central at the current track level to serve the rebuilt Chat Moss / Ordsall platforms whenever they get done, but I have to accept that I've no idea of the technical feasibility of that.

Eastbound that would be no problem, westbound the Castlefield Curve is too close.