Grade separation around the Castlefield Corridor, Manchester

[HSTEd]

Demolishing isn't an option because it would be too disruptive to the road system. All traffic entering or leaving the A57M from the west would be blocked. Total chaos for months while the sections were cut, craned out and removed, while building a replacement would take even longer. Simply not viable.
Of course while the work was going on all rail traffic below it would have to be blocked as well - blocking traffic approaching Castlefield from the north and northwest
I've read somewhere that the council have blocked any thought of removing it. Its too weak to use, the only option is to effectively preserve it in aspic and prevent any more holes appearing in it...........somewhere in the last couple of years I've read an online news report of the steps being taken to prevent further decay

Ultimately I am not convinced how much power the council actually has in such matters.
However, one could concievably repair the viaduct by welding a hell of a lot more structural steel to it, to the point where the current viaduct ends up as a veneer with no load bearing duties at all.

 

[ABB125]

Salford Crescent- wouldn’t you add side platforms but keep Victoria and Piccadilly lines separate until a mile north where the Wigan line veers away and there is space for flyovers and links across?

Do you mean the area to the west of Langley Business Park(?)? I thought about that, but I don't know how easy it would be to build new bits of railway there; it looks like the ground may be a bit soggy, and there are loads of trees in the way - there may be opposition on environmental grounds. However, if these issues aren't a problem it could well be a sensible idea (although there may be a need for grade separation here and at the station site).

 

[Bevan Price]

It is years too late now, due to extensive redevelopment of the Docks area, but if it had been considered in the 1950s, one solution would have been to use the original line from Windsor Bridge Junction to the Docks. This was single line, and conversion to double track would have been expensive, but the line tunnelled below the Chat Moss line and the A57 to emerge near the Ship Canal. At that time, there was probably sufficient vacant land to build a new line, partly over MSC Railway alignments, to join the CLC line somewhere near the site of Trafford Park mpd. If such a line existed now, it would not solve all the problems, but it would have eliminated conflicting movements at Ordsall Lane Jn.

 

[Meerkat]

true, but the brick arches are in as much a mess as the metalwork and would require extended closures to replace/refurb, while the A57 is the only access for removing the metalwork - unless you could do it by barge down the canal? Is it wide/deep enough there?

Network Rail replace brick arches in long weekends don’t they? Could do one carriageway at a time.
And they demolish tower blocks in more constrained sites so dismantling the metal bits could be done without using the A57.
The first big question is whether they would be allowed to demolish it!

 

[Chester1]

Network Rail replace brick arches in long weekends don’t they? Could do one carriageway at a time.
And they demolish tower blocks in more constrained sites so dismantling the metal bits could be done without using the A57.
The first big question is whether they would be allowed to demolish it!

Id be surprised if there is not a solution one way or another! Taking it apart and reusing what can be salvaged might be the only way of getting planning permission.

 

[B&I]

Greater Manchester is not the Labour stronghold it once was. The Tories have 9 MPs now (1 Manchester, 2 Stockport, 1 Wigan, 2 Bolton and 3 Bury). Andy Burnham has the mayorality wrapped up because he wins both first and second preference votes of people who don't vote Labour but the Tories have a stake at parliamentary level now.

My suggestion would remove 3tph by replacing the Airport service with one that terminated at an expanded Deansgate. It would need at least one Airport service that passes through Deansgate to call to provide a connection (e.g. Chat Moss EMU). Removing the Oxford Road terminators would simplify any rebuild of the station. The cheapest option would be to have 2 longer and wider platforms with additional facilities in the area that is now platform 1 and the two tracks next to it (from the southern boundary up to the lift for platforms 2 and 3). Platform 1 is not scheduled for regular use because of lack of disabled access and it would be extremely costly to add it. The corridor with 2 through platforms each at Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly could support 12tph with 3tph terminating at an expanded Deansgate. "Great nephew of Manchester Central" is a reasonable description of what I am suggesting. At the cost of a small amount of car park capacity the CLC could be largely separated from the Castlefield corridor improving the reliability of services on both. A near complete rebuild of the old viaduct (400m long), a new Metrolink stop, 2 platforms and an improved foot bridge would probably cost less than the £700m that Platforms 15 and 16 would cost and produce a simplified lower risk network in central Manchester.

So your plans require the removal of the supposed fast service from Liverpool to Manchester Airport. And you still haven't said how you're going to slot the EMR service onto Chat Moss, or what Warrington did to deserve being cut off further from.the outside world.

Unless the cost is radically less, I think I'd stick with platforms 15 and 16, and the possibility they hold put of improved through services.

 

[B&I]

It is years too late now, due to extensive redevelopment of the Docks area, but if it had been considered in the 1950s, one solution would have been to use the original line from Windsor Bridge Junction to the Docks. This was single line, and conversion to double track would have been expensive, but the line tunnelled below the Chat Moss line and the A57 to emerge near the Ship Canal. At that time, there was probably sufficient vacant land to build a new line, partly over MSC Railway alignments, to join the CLC line somewhere near the site of Trafford Park mpd. If such a line existed now, it would not solve all the problems, but it would have eliminated conflicting movements at Ordsall Lane Jn.

With a time machine there are all sorts of changes that could have been made around Manchester which are now impractical. I'd have suggested that, at the time.much of the Ancoats area was being cleared, a short connecting line between Victoria and Piccadilly could have been built, cutting the corner that the Phillips Park line goes round, allowing Victoria (in conjunction with Exchange) to be used much more as the city's main through station, given its huge size at that time, and giving the basis for a Melbourne-style central loop for local trains.

 

[B&I]

If you want to cut off the CLC line from the rest of the network (for passengers anyway) why not go the whole way and convert it to Metrolink/Merseyrail, giving direct connections to the city centre and Piccadilly, and higher frequency? Some of the route might not have the space for trams plus a single line for freight, so that'd need sorting, or alternatively, in the context of a scheme costing hundreds of millions, how much would it cost to close the freight yard?

Oh good, another railway line of regional importance lost to tramification

 

[B&I]

You could ease the gradient, at considerable cost, by running the connecting line past Deansgate (with a level stretch for the platform) and joining the existing line at the west end of Oxford Road.
In fact, you could put an independent line into P5 and make the new connection reversible, thus increasing capacity further.
However, this assumes the derelict viaduct can carry trams, and I suspect it's worse value for money than Ordsall Lane.

If you assumed that Deansgate was to close completely to heavy rail, and that instead heavy rail passengers would get off at Oxford Road and travellate to Deansgate tram stop, would this make a connection from the ex-CLC, now Metrolink viaduct to a rehashed Oxford Road easier ?

 

[30907]

Unless the cost is radically less, I think I'd stick with platforms 15 and 16

But 15/16 alone don't solve the issues at Castlefield/Ordsall Lane.

Thinking back to the "right turn lane" idea, what about simply creating a second eastbound platform at Deansgate, thus allowing trains to cross the junction then wait for a path. Wouldn't work with a freight though.
Second thoughts: make it a westbound platform, then you can regulate trains heading for Ordsall Lane/Victoria.
BTW does the plan for Oxford Road allow Deansgate to be retained anyway? It would take less space without platforms, though the work would still be on viaduct.
En Attendant makes a similar point.

 

[B&I]

But 15/16 alone don't solve the issues at Castlefield/Ordsall Lane.

Thinking back to the "right turn lane" idea, what about simply creating a second eastbound platform at Deansgate, thus allowing trains to cross the junction then wait for a path. Wouldn't work with a freight though.
Second thoughts: make it a westbound platform, then you can regulate trains heading for Ordsall Lane/Victoria.
BTW does the plan for Oxford Road allow Deansgate to be retained anyway? It would take less space without platforms, though the work would still be on viaduct.
En Attendant makes a similar point.

I agree that 15 and 16 alone probably aren't sufficient. My own preference remains an east-west tunnel for long distance trains, but even after their removal the current infrastructure would probably hamper development of the commuter railway Greater Manchester needs.

Some degree of grade separation on the junctions feeding into and around the Victoria-Ordsall-Castlefield-Piccadilly corridor therefore strikes me as sensible. At the risk of exposing my own technical ignorance, would anything other than cost prevent an elevated line being installed to carry trains from the Chat Moss line, over Salford Crescent-Castlefield trains, but then continuing east towards Salford Central to allow grade separation between trains between Victoria and Chat Moss on the one hand, and Victoria and the Ordsall Chord on the other ?

 

[6Gman]

Oh good, another railway line of regional importance lost to tramification

Indeed.

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

 

[30907]

At the risk of exposing my own technical ignorance, would anything other than cost prevent an elevated line being installed to carry trains from the Chat Moss line, over Salford Crescent-Castlefield trains, but then continuing east towards Salford Central to allow grade separation between trains between Victoria and Chat Moss on the one hand, and Victoria and the Ordsall Chord on the other ?

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.

 

[HSTEd]

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

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.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Some degree of grade separation on the junctions feeding into and around the Victoria-Ordsall-Castlefield-Piccadilly corridor therefore strikes me as sensible. At the risk of exposing my own technical ignorance, would anything other than cost prevent an elevated line being installed to carry trains from the Chat Moss line, over Salford Crescent-Castlefield trains, but then continuing east towards Salford Central to allow grade separation between trains between Victoria and Chat Moss on the one hand, and Victoria and the Ordsall Chord on the other ?

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.

See my idea from another thread re-quoted in post #8 of this thread. No grade separation is going to be cheap.

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.

Except that Warrington does not lie on that northern route and its connection to it could not be described as particularly convenient or efficient. Separating the CLC route from the national network should not even be considered unless or until HS3 is built and routed via Warrington.

 

[HSTEd]

Except that Warrington does not lie on that northern route and its connection to it could not be described as particularly convenient or efficient. Separating the CLC route from the national network should not even be considered unless or until HS3 is built and routed via Warrington.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

How far beyond Manchester do they need to go? I would be interested to know what destinations people actually use from Warrington C and how often.

 

[HSTEd]

How far beyond Manchester do they need to go? I would be interested to know what destinations people actually use from Warrington C and how often.

The only destinations that seem practical, given the current restrictinos on movements across the Picadilly Throat, that seem to be available from Warrington Central would be the routes to Stockport and on to Sheffield or the Styal Line.

You wouldn't go from Warrington to Crewe via Manchester, so all I can see is the EMR trains to Sheffield being significant.

EDIT:
I suppose there is always the Airport, but a simple chord at the right place west of Manchester city Centre could allow direct trams if that proved useful to enough people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only destinations that seem practical, given the current restrictinos on movements across the Picadilly Throat, that seem to be available from Warrington Central would be the routes to Stockport and on to Sheffield or the Styal Line.

You wouldn't go from Warrington to Crewe via Manchester, so all I can see is the EMR trains to Sheffield being significant.

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.

 

[Greybeard33]

Network Rail replace brick arches in long weekends don’t they? Could do one carriageway at a time.
And they demolish tower blocks in more constrained sites so dismantling the metal bits could be done without using the A57.
The first big question is whether they would be allowed to demolish it!

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.

If you assumed that Deansgate was to close completely to heavy rail, and that instead heavy rail passengers would get off at Oxford Road and travellate to Deansgate tram stop, would this make a connection from the ex-CLC, now Metrolink viaduct to a rehashed Oxford Road easier ?

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.

 

[Greybeard33]

See my idea from another thread re-quoted in post #8 of this thread. No grade separation is going to be cheap.

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.

 

[Chester1]

So your plans require the removal of the supposed fast service from Liverpool to Manchester Airport. And you still haven't said how you're going to slot the EMR service onto Chat Moss, or what Warrington did to deserve being cut off further from.the outside world.

Unless the cost is radically less, I think I'd stick with platforms 15 and 16, and the possibility they hold put of improved through services.

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.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Your point is well made. Ironically that "ideal" service pattern is not so different to that which existed after opening of the Windsor Link. It would be a shame if 30+ years of service development ends up offering little improvement in overall connectivity! The current infrastructure is clearly lacking in contingency capacity but part of the solution going forward has to include more robust train/crew diagramming so that such minor delays as are bound to arise do not cause subsequent snowballing of problems. That would then allow relatively intense timetabling of conflicting moves to be undertaken with more confidence than today. While funds will never be unlimited I believe it is important to have some ambition about what services can be provided.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

There are other places trains can go down the Styal Line than the airport you know.
A (relatively) cheap crossover at Styal for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are other places trains can go down the Styal Line than the airport you know.
A (relatively) cheap crossover at Styal for example.

But then if you're sending it down there, why not just send it to the Airport (or Crewe)? That's where people want to go. Styal is in the middle of nowhere.

We aren't talking about lopping Airport services to arbitrarily kick Airport users in the proverbials, we're talking about doing so to take trains out of Castlefield, e.g. have the Ordsall services go back to the main Picc trainshed and terminate there.

 

[HSTEd]

But then if you're sending it down there, why not just send it to the Airport (or Crewe)? That's where people want to go. Styal is in the middle of nowhere.

I thought the poster I was replying to suggested that 15/16 shouldn't be built because even if the Castlefield Corridor could make more trains there is nowhere to send them because the Airport is full.

 

[randyrippley]

Going slightly off-tangent, but what happened to the original plan to eventually turn the airport into a through station by tunneling out to the west? I thought a tunnel box had been created to create room for an extended station. Is this still an option or is the route now blocked?
If reversals were no longer needed at the airport then a lot of problems go away

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going slightly off-tangent, but what happened to the original plan to eventually turn the airport into a through station by tunneling out to the west? I thought a tunnel box had been created to create room for an extended station. Is this still an option or is the route now blocked?
If reversals were no longer needed at the airport then a lot of problems go away

I think it's still possible.

 

[Chester1]

I thought the poster I was replying to suggested that 15/16 shouldn't be built because even if the Castlefield Corridor could make more trains there is nowhere to send them because the Airport is full.

Its not that there is nowhere to send them but that the options would mean some very long through services. Your suggestion would mean extra services on a busy line. There isn't any solution of where to send them that is good.

 

[Meerkat]

Its not that there is nowhere to send them but that the options would mean some very long through services. Your suggestion would mean extra services on a busy line. There isn't any solution of where to send them that is good.

Round a loop via the HS2 station or some holding loops then back through the Airport station.....