I don't see how a tunnel would be helpful in the context of the Castlefield problems either, except if you want to make the Castlefield corridor four tracks throughout (if I recall correctly the platform 15/16 plans still had one section of viaduct which couldn't be widened beyond 2 tracks)
Yes HS2 will provide the terminal platforms, so long as Liverpool & Leeds services can access them, but they do not need a tunnel through the centre to achieve that. The tunnel should not really be a heavy rail line, but a rather a metrolink line (not for running trams down).
A tunnel sounds nice in theory but I really can't see how a tunnel would solve many/ most/ all of the problems
For example, if the justification for a tunnel is to take services off Castlefield then I guess you'd have one from the Airport to Salford Crescent? So removing the InterCity trains from Castlefield by running them through a tunnel? But that isn't the same as the Metrolink idea - I don't know how one tunnel is going to make a big difference.
A cross-city tram route sounds more of a priority IMHO - maybe the Atherton line to the Marple/ Glossop lines?
Still no decision published? They must surely be in serious danger of running out of time!
Saying that, and judging by the comments on this thread (which no doubt reflect the challenges the planners face) wouldn't it be better for a further 6 months delay than to get the wrong answer again?
All the problems being faced seem to me to be as a result of previous stupid decisions - decisions taken at the time which were (as one poster said above, sorry forgot who) going to solve the Manchester problems forever.
We need one main station in Manchester to stop unnecessary differing destinations of service and save money. Great! Let's close Central and reduce capacity at Oxford Road as we can run more to platforms 13 / 14 and use Picc/Vic link instead. We can also close Exchange and concentrate at Victoria.
Oh that's not worked. And there's no Picc-Vic link anymore. No problem! Metrolink's coming online soon which will deal with interchanges we can't move, and for the rest let's build a "Windsor Link" to move them to Piccadilly.
Oh that's not worked. Don't you worry! Now we have Metrolink, we can move more services to Piccadilly (if I were so inclined I could call it some kind of unpronounceable German name Hauptoffkbahn or something). Victoria can then be scaled back and made more standardised with better reliability as a purely local station. We can also release mega funds by selling off un-needed and unused station space to build an Arena.
But trains are still crowded in the peak. And now we have a new airport link we paid ££££ for. Just the solution! We'll just shift as much as we possibly can squeeze onto 13/14 and then onto the airport. And for everything else, we'll route it into Piccadilly and reverse it.
But trains are still crowded. And now every man and their dog is demanding direct services to Manchester Airport. Never fret! Let's just build an "Ordsall Curve" at a cost of ££££££, so that we can shove even more services through 13/14 on to the airport. That'll sort it.
It hasn't though. It's made it worse. And now we have three, five and six car sets that are always late, mess up the paths and end up with cancellations. Don't be so negative! All we need to do is re-write the timetable and issue a new franchise agreement with promises of yet more direct trains to the airport. Arriva say they can deliver it.
And we are now where we are, because of all the previous radical suggestions that were going to sort everything, but didn't.
What's the solution though?
You're right in that Manchester has had many infrastructure improvements over the years, but I don't know what additional ones it needs (other than electrifying existing lines)?
What it needs (IMHO) is a simpler network of services that maintain a good service from each line into central Manchester but without the muddle of hourly services that tie the whole region up
The infrastructure seems adequate - the problem is all of these unconnected hourly routes that mean that the timetable can't easily be re-written (because everything has fixed points at bottlenecks)
The whole timetable falls apart easily because there's no resilience because everything is hourly - e.g. there's a fairly frequent Manchester - Wigan service but it's made up of trains from Leeds/ Stalybridge/ Alderley Edge/ Blackburn... so if there's a problem outside Wigan then that impacts upon services through bottlenecks like the throat at Bradford Interchange or Stockport Viaduct...
...and means we have a lot of diesels spending time under the wires because they run from an unnelectrified place to an electrified place...
...which is why we also have the nonsense of the "nine trains per hour on the Airport branch but with gaps of up to seventeen minutes, because the large mix of hourly services mean that they can't be well co-ordinated
Fix the mess of services rather than spending hundreds of millions of pounds on more infrastructure (which would only encourage more daft services like Bradford to Manchester Airport) - e.g. if you matched up four Wigan services with four Todmorden services then you have two diesel destinations paired up, you make it a lot easier to bounce back in the event of anything going wrong (e.g. if there's a half hourly Southport - Victoria - Rochdale - Bradford - Leeds service and a half hourly Wigan - Victoria - Rochdale service that extends towards Brighouse/ Burnley then it's a lot easier to get your DMUs back into providing the "normal" service - rather than at the moment when a Wigan - Leeds train that gets delayed has no easy way to recover)
All of these stuff about four tracking through Castlefield, additional platforms at Piccadilly, tunnels... it'd be a huge amount of money and wouldn't tackle the main problem, which is our addiction to hourly direct links (some people seem okay about other people losing their direct links but get very hypocritical about their own ones!)
The current option B+
- retains hourly train services to the Airport (via the Castlefield corridor) from here, there (including NE England/Scotland/Wales) and everywhere
- abandons the principle in the original consultation (particularly option C) of regular 30 minute interval local services, e.g. by splitting the Southport service between Oxford Road and Victoria, so a second stopping service on the CLC line can't be accommodated
- maintains use of the Ordsall curve for trains from the Standedge line to Manchester, which could be diverted via Guide Bridge to Piccadilly, further relieving pressure on the Castlefield line
- makes little use of platforms 1 and 2 at Victoria, which could accommodate 4 coach stopping trains from the Standedge line.
IMO, it won't solve the Castlefield line problems. These won't go away until a radical decision is made to remove long-distance services from the Castlefield line and confine its use to local Northern-run services from within historic Lancashire, plus the Sheffield-Liverpool through service that has no practicable alternative route.
Good points there - I think your assessment/ prophecies sound fair
Well I think we’re broadly I agreement. Although hypothetically, should Sheffield services continue to Liverpool, or should they terminate at Piccadilly? I’m in favour of terminating.
As someone living in South Yorkshire, I'd be fine with the services terminating in the main Piccadilly shed - a through train to Manchester Airport/ Liverpool/ Blackpool/ Lake District would come in handy a few times a year but a reliable simple train that uses the same platforms each time would be be the main priority for me
(I think that the Sheffield - Liverpool link is more important to Liverpudlians who'd get annoyed at losing long distance links and having to change at Manchester to get beyond - I don't think it's as important to people this side of t'Pennines)
I am afraid if you think the DfT in London are any better than TfN in the North at understanding the north's needs you are very much mistaken. The DfT aren't exactly clued up either.
It may not even be about "London" being any better, but them being a good "neutral" arbitrator of all of the competing claims for paths through Castlefield/ paths into Pic rather than Vic/ paths to the Airport etc
