How should Northern Powerhouse Rail get through Manchester ?

[edwin_m]

Add in an interchange station near the Windsor link, and it’s then possible to route some services in the existing network through Vic rather than Pic, and not hit connectivity, since direct access to east-west intercity services there, means you don’t have to funnel as much as possible through Castlefield to feed Piccadilly.
...
Add in an interchange station near the Windsor link, and it’s then possible to route some services in the existing network through Vic rather than Pic, and not hit connectivity, since direct access to east-west intercity services there, means you don’t have to funnel as much as possible through Castlefield to feed Piccadilly.

There’s always a way, it’s just a question of the level of pragmatism leaders are able to accept, especially on substituting direct services to the airport with high frequencies of local services to connect Piccadilly.

Where exactly to put this interchange? Unlikely an underground route could serve Salford Central, and Salford Crescent is in the wrong place to head for Liverpool, so you're probably looking at something at Ordsall Lane. This is yet another station within a very short distance, and like Salford Crescent close enough to junctions to have a disproportionate capacity impact.

Local services from Piccadilly aren't much use if you've sent the main line service through Victoria.

 

[GJMarshy]

Where exactly to put this interchange? Unlikely an underground route could serve Salford Central, and Salford Crescent is in the wrong place to head for Liverpool, so you're probably looking at something at Ordsall Lane. This is yet another station within a very short distance, and like Salford Crescent close enough to junctions to have a disproportionate capacity impact.

Local services from Piccadilly aren't much use if you've sent the main line service through Victoria.

Oldfield Road site where the existing lines converge. The mainline would continue to Piccadilly via a city centre tunnel, much shorter than the 8mi south Manchester tunnel. From there you join up with the existing lines toward Huddersfield & Leeds (TRU) with provision to connect to new lines upon completion.

 

[domcoop7]

Oldfield Road site where the existing lines converge. The mainline would continue to Piccadilly via a city centre tunnel, much shorter than the 8mi south Manchester tunnel. From there you join up with the existing lines toward Huddersfield & Leeds (TRU) with provision to connect to new lines upon completion.

There's barely 300 metre from that junction going East before you reach two existing railway viaducts, foundations of a multi-storey building and the River Irwell. I'm no civil engineer, but that's surely not feasible?

 

[GJMarshy]

There's barely 300 metre from that junction going East before you reach two existing railway viaducts, foundations of a multi-storey building and the River Irwell. I'm no civil engineer, but that's surely not feasible?

Depends how you engineer it. 2xNPR platforms in an open shallow-box west of Oldfield Rd & 4x local rail platforms at surface-level just north, and you've hot a nice tight interchange. Given the positioning there’s more than sufficient space to accommodate a doable vertical alignment under the Irwell. Throw in the mooted Metrolink line on Oldfield Rd also and Salford Quays becomes easily accessibly from the wider north also, better connecting the media, tech and knowledge economies.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

After the aftermath of recent statements on transport matters, how does the currently accepted officially-held view on Northern Powerhouse Rail now stand?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oldfield Road site where the existing lines converge. The mainline would continue to Piccadilly via a city centre tunnel, much shorter than the 8mi south Manchester tunnel. From there you join up with the existing lines toward Huddersfield & Leeds (TRU) with provision to connect to new lines upon completion.

Oldfield Road railway station was opened by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in February 1852. Eventually, operational matters concerning Salford railway station became resolved and twenty years after opening, in December 1872, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway formally closed Oldfield Road railway station.

 

[GJMarshy]

Oldfield Road railway station was opened by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in February 1852. Eventually, operational matters concerning Salford railway station became resolved and twenty years after opening, in December 1872, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway formally closed Oldfield Road railway station.

Thanks for adding a bit of history!

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with most of what you've said, albeit that the freight proposals are quite recent and a lot simpler than you've implied. The NPR timings are instructive: "26 minutes" was just an initial ambition; "29.5 minutes" was TfN's first estimate, and was predicated upon a new line into Lime Street;

The 29.5 minute estimate was also predicated on two intermediate stops (Warrington and MAnchester Airport), I believe the 26-minute estimate was predicated on a non-stop service.

and "35 minutes" is the estimated time from the NIC's Integrated Rail Plan, and is the timing upon which the £12 billion envelope is based. So it's 35 minutes for £12 billion (i.e. slower than now)

It probably isn't slower than now for most real journeys involving Manchester though.
It will be something like 15 minutes faster than now or more because Victoria is such an awful station for Manchester.

You could just as easily cut 2-3 minutes off the journey time if you stopped the trains in Liverpool at Edge Hill instead, but it wouldn't be particularly useful.

Sure it doesn't really benefit Leeds or Liverpool much directly, but Manchester is a rather substantial urban area.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You could just as easily cut 2-3 minutes off the journey time if you stopped the trains in Liverpool at Edge Hill instead, but it wouldn't be particularly useful.

Can someone with knowledge of Edge Hill station history say what the current situation is with the original Liverpool and Manchester Railway line from Edge Hill to the Wapping Dock area that went through the long Wapping tunnel and of the possibility of ever using that line section again for rail traffic.

 

[gc4946]

I'd follow the NPR route from Liverpool via Warrington BQ (low level) and Manchester Airport, but then approach via tunnel to Piccadilly low level.
Then I'd follow the line of the abortive Picc-Vic tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel if its route is unobstructed, or on a new alignment in a north-easterly direction exiting at a point somewhere in north Manchester or near Oldham. It means no reversals are required.

 

[MPW]

I'd follow the NPR route from Liverpool via Warrington BQ (low level) and Manchester Airport, but then approach via tunnel to Piccadilly low level.
Then I'd follow the line of the abortive Picc-Vic tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel if its route is unobstructed, or on a new alignment in a north-easterly direction exiting at a point somewhere in north Manchester or near Oldham. It means no reversals are required.

And a tunnel from near Littleborough to Halifax for Bradford?

 

[fishwomp]

Two things I'd do.

1. Piccadilly to Guide Bridge needs serious acceleration.

- It's a four track corridor with only two tracks in situ (that's been discussed before!) for passenger use. The 5 miles from Guide Bridge to Pic are scheduled at 10 mins, a poor 30 mph. 12+ services per hour, conflicts at Ashburys East Jct with the Rose Hill, Sheffield, etc, and at Guide Bridge with Glossops and other Sheffield/Hyde services.

- Platform 0 at Pic doesn't exist but is a parking lot for Network Rail and its portakabins sitting on prime platform-usable space. Actually there's room for two platforms there.

- Fix: four track from Guide Bridge, with the two northernmost lines exclusive for TPE services. They would then miss almost all conflicts - except Ardwick to Pic itself. The extra two platforms (0 and -1) would reduce those stacking on same platform that Pic has at evening peaks which are fine when everything is on time but it never is..

2. Victoria is under-sized, which magnifies delays for through services. 4 through platforms is nuts!

- Knock the arena down and and reinstate the 2 northernmost through platforms so unwisely given up in the 1990s. It cost £50m to build first time around, rebuild above the line again, but on stilts for the two new platforms...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And a tunnel from near Littleborough to Halifax for Bradford?

At one time, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway did consider extending the Rishworth branch line from Sowerby Bridge to meet the existing line near to Littleborough, but decided against it.

 

[gc4946]

And a tunnel from near Littleborough to Halifax for Bradford?

'd follow the NPR route from Liverpool via Warrington BQ (low level) and Manchester Airport, but then approach via tunnel to Piccadilly low level.
Then I'd follow the line of the abortive Picc-Vic tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel if its route is unobstructed, or on a new alignment in a north-easterly direction exiting at a point somewhere in north Manchester or near Oldham. It means no reversals are required.

Bradford should be served by a high-speed rail link. The council earmarked the former Adolphus Street station (now St James's Market) as a possible high speed station. https://www.nextstopbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NPR_Bradford_Growth_Strategy.pdf

 

[cle]

Two things I'd do.

1. Piccadilly to Guide Bridge needs serious acceleration.

- It's a four track corridor with only two tracks in situ (that's been discussed before!) for passenger use. The 5 miles from Guide Bridge to Pic are scheduled at 10 mins, a poor 30 mph. 12+ services per hour, conflicts at Ashburys East Jct with the Rose Hill, Sheffield, etc, and at Guide Bridge with Glossops and other Sheffield/Hyde services.

- Platform 0 at Pic doesn't exist but is a parking lot for Network Rail and its portakabins sitting on prime platform-usable space. Actually there's room for two platforms there.

- Fix: four track from Guide Bridge, with the two northernmost lines exclusive for TPE services. They would then miss almost all conflicts - except Ardwick to Pic itself. The extra two platforms (0 and -1) would reduce those stacking on same platform that Pic has at evening peaks which are fine when everything is on time but it never is..

2. Victoria is under-sized, which magnifies delays for through services. 4 through platforms is nuts!

- Knock the arena down and and reinstate the 2 northernmost through platforms so unwisely given up in the 1990s. It cost £50m to build first time around, rebuild above the line again, but on stilts for the two new platforms...

The first point here is very painfully true and has been for years. This is an easy win which would benefit many services...

Ardwick really could be bulldozed and two through lined reinstated. I know it's now the fringe of the developed city, but I really don't see it needed. Maybe one day it's a Met stop.

Is there precedent for a platform minus one? I'd think A and B (do Metrolink use that?) - or if letters can't be used, maybe 99?!

 

[domcoop7]

It will be something like 15 minutes faster than now or more because Victoria is such an awful station for Manchester.

You could just as easily cut 2-3 minutes off the journey time if you stopped the trains in Liverpool at Edge Hill instead, but it wouldn't be particularly useful.

Victoria is much more convenient for Manchester. Indeed The Independent journalist Simon Calder recently did a poll on Twitter asking for the most and least convenient railway stations for the cities they served and quite a few people named Manchester Piccadilly. It's literally located between some half-empty office blocks, derelict car parks, an industrial estate, a ring road and some slightly more full office blocks.

It's a 17 minute walk from Piccadilly to the Town Hall vs Victoria's 13 minutes (according to Google Maps), 23 minute walk to the Spinningfields Business complex vs 17 for Victoria and of course a 14 minute walk to the main shopping centre at the Arndale vs Victoria's 5 minutes.

It is no comparison at all to Edge Hill in Liverpool - it's more like the difference between James Street (the equivalent of Victoria) and if Lime Street Station was located further north where the Unite Union building is off Churchill Way.

I'd follow the NPR route from Liverpool via Warrington BQ (low level) and Manchester Airport, but then approach via tunnel to Piccadilly low level.
Then I'd follow the line of the abortive Picc-Vic tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel if its route is unobstructed, or on a new alignment in a north-easterly direction exiting at a point somewhere in north Manchester or near Oldham. It means no reversals are required.

If we're going to tunnel under Manchester (and in reality, we're not) I'd suggest a better route would be from somewhere on the Windsor Link south East of Salford Crescent, to a Central Manchester underground station, then to Piccadilly Low Level and coming out east of the station throat to take Chorley / Bolton / Wigan / Southport out of the Castlefield corridor as a Thameslink / Crossrail type service. NPR can use an upgraded Chat Moss via Victoria.

 

[HSTEd]

Victoria is much more convenient for Manchester. Indeed The Independent journalist Simon Calder recently did a poll on Twitter asking for the most and least convenient railway stations for the cities they served and quite a few people named Manchester Piccadilly. It's literally located between some half-empty office blocks, derelict car parks, an industrial estate, a ring road and some slightly more full office blocks.

It's a 17 minute walk from Piccadilly to the Town Hall vs Victoria's 13 minutes (according to Google Maps), 23 minute walk to the Spinningfields Business complex vs 17 for Victoria and of course a 14 minute walk to the main shopping centre at the Arndale vs Victoria's 5 minutes.

It's not really about walking though, it's got far inferior onward travel options.
Local rail services to a comparative handful of areas, arguably inferior metrolink options within easy reach and Shudehill Interchange is not really a centre for high intensity buses like that seen at Picadilly Gardens and the areas around it.

If we're going to tunnel under Manchester (and in reality, we're not)
I'd suggest a better route would be from somewhere on the Windsor Link south East of Salford Crescent, to a Central Manchester underground station, then to Piccadilly Low Level and coming out east of the station throat to take Chorley / Bolton / Wigan / Southport out of the Castlefield corridor as a Thameslink / Crossrail type service. NPR can use an upgraded Chat Moss via Victoria.

What does that gain you though?
That would be astronomically expensive and wouldn't fundamentally solve any of Manchester's major transport issues. It would almost certainly cost far more than the Airport tunnel solution.

It arguably makes the current problems worse by fragmenting rail serivce over more stations, which is a very bad idea for encouraging use of the rail system.

The HS2-tunnel based solution gets passengers to the stations with the best interchange options and frees space on Castlefield, allowing further consolidation of rail transport in the city for maximum interchange (using the Ordsall Chord). The ideal would be every train stopping in Manchester stops in one particular station, even if it also stops at other stations, although that is far beyond the capability of the existing infrastructure.

In any case, an upgraded Chat Moss can't meaningfully reduce journey times, what we have now is essentially what we are stuck with, with large numbers of Liverpool passengers using the Castlefield complex trains. The travel times on Chat Moss are not really set by max linespeed any more, they are set by the twelve intermediate stations and the performance of the Stopper. Furthermore, there are a bunch of quite busy stations on the Chat Moss line that would probably like an improved stopping service and can almost certainly justify it, but can't currently have one because of the fast service timetabling issues.

In order to escape either of these problems you will have to spend so much on trying to quad track it that you might as well just build a new line from scratch, including the Airport Tunnel.

 

[Meerkat]

Split the trains between Picc and Vic as per fastest/least congested, and then build a Picc-Somewhere Central-Vic underground line of some sort. That would be cheaper than any National or regional rail tunnel no?
Would that be best as a Tramlink tunnel?
This presumably wouldn’t satisfy local NPR ambitions, but how close would it get?

 

[Bevan Price]

Any way of achieving faster trains between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds is going to be very expensive, and partly frustrated by mistakes made in the past. Also, St. Helens + Newton Le Willows, Warrington & Widnes are too large to be left with nothing better than slow stopping trains to/from Manchester.

Some of the mistakes include:
1. Manchester Victoria and that infernal arena.
2. Mancester Exchange used to be 4 tracks all the way to Barton Moss Junction, and land had been purchased to allow widening for another couple of miles towards Astley (never implemented, but a short section was used as a temporary diversion when the M62 underbridge was being built.)
The M602 and other infrastructure now blocks restoration of 4 tracks)
3. Huyton Junction to Liverpool Lime Street was 4 tracks throughout. Now blocked at Broad Green by M62 approach roads & connections; also now block by Wavertree Technology Park station.

Chat Moss line; parts of the land across Chat Moss is far from stable. If you stand near Astley Level Crossing, you can feel the nearby ground "bounce" slightly every time a heavy train goes past. So the 60 mph limit there seems inevitable without expensive "land improvement".

With current speed limits and driving procedures, Liverpool Lime Street to South Parkway takes over 9 minutes. Lime street to Huyton takes just over 7 minutes. My own fastest time from Lime Street to Manchester Victoria is about 29.5 minutes - just once, with a Class 185, and depended on a very rare event - a completely unchecked approach into Manchester Victoria. Add a couple of minutes for an intermediate stop, and 32 minutes ought to be feasible - just - if you are unchecked. Anything better, and you are talking about new lines, probably partly in tunnel, at both Liverpool & Manchester.

Talk of getting fast times between Manchester & Bradford would also seem to need at least one new line, probably requiring a tunnel, somewhere between Huddersfield and Bradford. The location of a new station for Bradford is also a potentially expensive problem; one suggestion to put a station even further from the city centre seems stupid; any time gained by faster trains is lost by the extra time & inconvenience of getting to the city centre.

 

[Halifaxlad]

You aren't getting a straighter alignment through that area without putting the whole thing in a tunnel though.

There is housing all over the place, you'd have to destroy whole streets to get a much straighter alignment, unless you resort to a Stalybridge-Marsden base tunnel concept.

If you thought a tunnel was controversial, just wait until you propose mass demolitions of the cores of several towns.
And you will probably need a pile of work at the north end of the tunnel too given the incredibly sharp curve that would render all the speed increases moot.

The best way to route a new line to Marsden would be alongside the line to Rochdale before crossing the A627 and following the M62 before delving off into a tunnel to Marsden. Similar to what the 'in full' option was expected to suggest although that was route that followed the M62 all the way into Yorkshire so goodness knows how many houses that would have demolished if politicians got their way!

The travel times on Chat Moss are not really set by max linespeed any more, they are set by the twelve intermediate stations and the performance of the Stopper. Furthermore, there are a bunch of quite busy stations on the Chat Moss line that would probably like an improved stopping service and can almost certainly justify it, but can't currently have one because of the fast service timetabling issues.

In order to escape either of these problems you will have to spend so much on trying to quad track it that you might as well just build a new line from scratch, including the Airport Tunnel.

I certainly agree that the only way to solve it would to build a new line from scratch but I don't understand why you would need the Airport tunnel ? The majority of the stations are West of the M6, clearly the best location for any new line is to drop down and follow the M62 as far as junction 5. No need for a tunnel, although I do think a tunnel should be built to enable any new line to approach Liverpool from the North and a new station upon the old Exchange site.

A new line could also have a chord to connect it up to Warrington and also the WCML below Golborne. Something like this...

Liverpool - Manchester – Google My Maps

Liverpool - Manchester

www.google.com

 

[Wavertreelad]

Any way of achieving faster trains between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds is going to be very expensive, and partly frustrated by mistakes made in the past. Also, St. Helens + Newton Le Willows, Warrington & Widnes are too large to be left with nothing better than slow stopping trains to/from Manchester.

Some of the mistakes include:

3. Huyton Junction to Liverpool Lime Street was 4 tracks throughout. Now blocked at Broad Green by M62 approach roads & connections; also now block by Wavertree Technology Park station.

You could probably get four tracks past Wavertree Technology Station by converting the existing platforms to island platforms. There still appears to be space if the vegetation was removed on the south of the station and on the north side by removing the ramp which used to carry freight trains up to the flyover and bridge over the WCML and back down to the siding to the south of Edge Hill Station but was lifted in the 1960's.

Speaking as someone who commuted between Liverpool and Salford up to recently for eight years mainly by car, my guess from watching the traffic flows, is that most people travelling between the two cities are broadly travelling to the city centre or close to it, and certainly not Manchester Airport. To me that suggests that upgrading and electrifying the CLC route could deliver better connections between the city centres quicker and cheaper than waiting for any new HS route which is only likely to be completed in 20 plus years time. I wonder if the you could reopen Glazebrook East Junction–Skelton Junction line and a shorter tunnel to connect to a new east/west facing underground station at Piccadilly to allow trains to connect with any new NPR line or line to east of Stalybridge via upgraded existing routes. Alternatively you link to a new line from the Chat Moss route to connect to the the Glazebrook East Junction line as above, which would perhaps be a lower cost option to the CrossNorth proposal.

 

[HSTEd]

To me that suggests that upgrading and electrifying the CLC route could deliver better connections between the city centres quicker and cheaper than waiting for any new HS route which is only likely to be completed in 20 plus years time. I wonder if the you could reopen Glazebrook East Junction–Skelton Junction line and a shorter tunnel to connect to a new east/west facing underground station at Piccadilly to allow trains to connect with any new NPR line or line to east of Stalybridge via upgraded existing routes. Alternatively you link to a new line from the Chat Moss route to connect to the the Glazebrook East Junction line as above, which would perhaps be a lower cost option to the CrossNorth proposal.

Our fundamental problem is the CLC line has the same limitation as the Chat Moss, only worse. It has even more intermediate stations that require service, and indeed Warrington Central probably demands a better service than anywhere on Chat Moss.
Upgrading it can't improve things that much, and the considerations forcing trains to run through Castlefield to reach the Airport will still constrain city centre operations.

The best way to route a new line to Marsden would be alongside the line to Rochdale before crossing the A627 and following the M62 before delving off into a tunnel to Marsden. Similar to what the 'in full' option was expected to suggest although that was route that followed the M62 all the way into Yorkshire so goodness knows how many houses that would have demolished if politicians got their way!

I've thought about that route, it does have the advantage of being in railway hands.
It's likely the proposed option would have been almost continuous tunnel.

I certainly agree that the only way to solve it would to build a new line from scratch but I don't understand why you would need the Airport tunnel ? The majority of the stations are West of the M6, clearly the best location for any new line is to drop down and follow the M62 as far as junction 5. No need for a tunnel, although I do think a tunnel should be built to enable any new line to approach Liverpool from the North and a new station upon the old Exchange site.

A new line could also have a chord to connect it up to Warrington and also the WCML below Golborne. Something like this...

Liverpool - Manchester – Google My Maps

Liverpool - Manchester

www.google.com

Well we are rather hurting for viable ways out of Manchester without a tunnel.
And once you have a tunnel you might as well go to the airport, because running trains to the airport via the new line removes one of the primary drivers for the Gordian Knot of Castlefield planning.

EDIT:
Manchester Airport is apparently the 14th Busiest station in the North West (by total entries and exits) in the last set of stats!
And six of the higher ranked stations are served by Merseyrail (includes Chester and Lime Street, so cheating a bit but still)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The best way to route a new line to Marsden would be alongside the line to Rochdale before crossing the A627 and following the M62 before delving off into a tunnel to Marsden. Similar to what the 'in full' option was expected to suggest although that was route that followed the M62 all the way into Yorkshire so goodness knows how many houses that would have demolished if politicians got their way!

Would that route pass near to the area of Scammonden Dam?

 

[The Ham]

One thing which is definitely needed is extra platform capacity.

As I've said on other threads removing just two ICWC services from somewhere like Manchester Piccadilly would have freed up a while platform. With NPR or could have also freed up more capacity by swapping TPE and XC from existing platforms as well.

The one platform could be freed up for at least 3 pairs of local services (each with 6 coaches rather than 4) which would have created more capacity on the platforms vacated for the two remaining services to be lengthened from 4 to 6 as well.

Whilst there's few long trains (i.e. 10+ coaches long) currently part of what's stopping that from happening is likely to be platform capacity.

Personally I would suggest new lines and new capacity at stations to create significantly more services of longer length. The ideal would be a "Crossrail" type setup with frequent services.

There's an argument that having such a setup that you could then move away from a service from everywhere to everywhere at 1tph to a core route with (say) 6tph and each line which connects to it having 2tph. By (for example) halving the length of the route that the DMU has to travel you can run it twice as frequently over the non wired section at no extra cost, however with the core route running longer and more frequent services it would attract a lot of extra customers to cover the extra costs that it would incur.

However with lower per seat costs and it easier to do ticket checks as the trains wouldn't be rammed, it would probably justify the extra costs.

With a simplified timetable it would make trains services more reliable, it would be easier to recover from an issue (as cutting one core route service isn't going to upset many people as they just get the next one in 10 minutes time - even if they then miss their connection they'll be only 30 minutes late, rather than an hour late).

In such a set up or would be a mixture of new lines for local services (through city cores) and for express services (to bypass lines with stopping services).

 

[The Planner]

One thing which is definitely needed is extra platform capacity.

As I've said on other threads removing just two ICWC services from somewhere like Manchester Piccadilly would have freed up a while platform. With NPR or could have also freed up more capacity by swapping TPE and XC from existing platforms as well.

The one platform could be freed up for at least 3 pairs of local services (each with 6 coaches rather than 4) which would have created more capacity on the platforms vacated for the two remaining services to be lengthened from 4 to 6 as well.

Whilst there's few long trains (i.e. 10+ coaches long) currently part of what's stopping that from happening is likely to be platform capacity.

Personally I would suggest new lines and new capacity at stations to create significantly more services of longer length. The ideal would be a "Crossrail" type setup with frequent services.

There's an argument that having such a setup that you could then move away from a service from everywhere to everywhere at 1tph to a core route with (say) 6tph and each line which connects to it having 2tph. By (for example) halving the length of the route that the DMU has to travel you can run it twice as frequently over the non wired section at no extra cost, however with the core route running longer and more frequent services it would attract a lot of extra customers to cover the extra costs that it would incur.

However with lower per seat costs and it easier to do ticket checks as the trains wouldn't be rammed, it would probably justify the extra costs.

With a simplified timetable it would make trains services more reliable, it would be easier to recover from an issue (as cutting one core route service isn't going to upset many people as they just get the next one in 10 minutes time - even if they then miss their connection they'll be only 30 minutes late, rather than an hour late).

In such a set up or would be a mixture of new lines for local services (through city cores) and for express services (to bypass lines with stopping services).

You would save two platforms at Picc if you removed todays Avanti service.

 

[Killingworth]

Was I dreaming when I recently travelled on a modern rammed 12 coach train ftom one side of a British city to the other? Or a modern 9 coach train below the same city as it intersected with the line of the first, through modern airy stations? Very much part of the city scene, indispensible, no dream, electric reality. Like the M25 those lines have created new opportunities and markets.

I certainly am dreaming when I think of a Thamelink line intersecting below Manchester with a CrossMan route. The builders of engineering projects like the Pennine tunnels, the lines below Liverpool and the Manchester Ship Canal must be looking on in amazement at our inabilty to get things done.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Our fundamental problem is the CLC line has the same limitation as the Chat Moss, only worse. It has even more intermediate stations that require service, and indeed Warrington Central probably demands a better service than anywhere on Chat Moss.
Upgrading it can't improve things that much, and the considerations forcing trains to run through Castlefield to reach the Airport will still constrain city centre operations.



Well we are rather hurting for viable ways out of Manchester without a tunnel.
And once you have a tunnel you might as well go to the airport, because running trains to the airport via the new line removes one of the primary drivers for the Gordian Knot of Castlefield planning.

EDIT:
Manchester Airport is apparently the 14th Busiest station in the North West (by total entries and exits) in the last set of stats!
And six of the higher ranked stations are served by Merseyrail (includes Chester and Lime Street, so cheating a bit but still)

My suggestion regarding the CLC line was more to do with the concept of delivering better connections between Liverpool and Manchester, but necessarily using high-speed lines. To remind the PM's statement stated

"We will also invest a further £12 billion to better connect Manchester to Liverpool. This would allow the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail as previously planned, including high-speed lines. But we will work with local leaders to agree whether they wish to suggest other ways to achieve the objectives within that cost envelope."

Manchester Airport may be the 14th busiest station in the North West, but that does not automatically mean that all, or even a significant number of passengers originate from the Liverpool or Warrington area. In fact I wouldn't mind betting the majority originate from the east or north of the Manchester. It could therefore well be that local politicians decide that the greater immediate benefit to the communities at both ends of the CLC would be to deliver an upgraded electrified route between the two city centres quicker than waiting for a high speed rail solution which could be another 20 years away. As we all know politicians tend to take decisions often based on short term solutions to gain political credibility, rather than longer term solutions. You could spin the upgrade of the CLC either way without affecting a final decision on any high speed solution west of Manchester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester Airport may be the 14th busiest station in the North West, but that does not automatically mean that all, or even a significant number of passengers originate from the Liverpool or Warrington area. In fact I wouldn't mind betting the majority originate from the east or north of the Manchester.

Where would one go to find statistical data on the areas that users of Manchester Airport come from?

(A small query to one of the more prolific posters on this website.....if Manchester Airport is the 14th busiest station in the North West, at what position would one find his favourite Ringway Airport be placed in?)

 

[Cowley]

The tram side discussion is now here:

Would it be possible to link the two main Manchester termini with an express team route?

mods note - split from this thread As a possibly cheaper solution to the Picc-Vic tunnel, or in addition to, my crayons like the idea of an express tram connection between victoria and piccadily via the ring road/great ancoats street with just one intermediate stop. Won't go in anymore detail...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

- Knock the arena down and and reinstate the 2 northernmost through platforms so unwisely given up in the 1990s. It cost £50m to build first time around, rebuild above the line again, but on stilts for the two new platforms...

Are you serious in considering what you propose to happen to an existing arena building that has hosted many large events over the years, just to reinstate two through platforms in a second-rate railway station...

 

[daodao]

Two things I'd do.

1. Piccadilly to Guide Bridge needs serious acceleration.

- It's a four track corridor with only two tracks in situ (that's been discussed before!) for passenger use. The 5 miles from Guide Bridge to Pic are scheduled at 10 mins, a poor 30 mph. 12+ services per hour, conflicts at Ashburys East Jct with the Rose Hill, Sheffield, etc, and at Guide Bridge with Glossops and other Sheffield/Hyde services.

- Platform 0 at Pic doesn't exist but is a parking lot for Network Rail and its portakabins sitting on prime platform-usable space. Actually there's room for two platforms there.

- Fix: four track from Guide Bridge, with the two northernmost lines exclusive for TPE services. They would then miss almost all conflicts - except Ardwick to Pic itself. The extra two platforms (0 and -1) would reduce those stacking on same platform that Pic has at evening peaks which are fine when everything is on time but it never is..

2. Victoria is under-sized, which magnifies delays for through services. 4 through platforms is nuts!

- Knock the arena down and and reinstate the 2 northernmost through platforms so unwisely given up in the 1990s. It cost £50m to build first time around, rebuild above the line again, but on stilts for the two new platforms...

Metrolink conversion of some of the ex-GC services to the east/south-east out of Piccadilly would relieve the pressure on platforms 1-3. If the Glossop service is converted, separate tracks could be reinstated for it from Ashburys to Guide Bridge.

Victoria has sufficient platforms, provided that terminating trains don't linger in platforms 3-6 for more than 5 minutes and are sent to sidings east or west of the station to lay over, before returning to the station for the departing service no earlier than 5 minutes in advance of the departure time.

The only TPE services using platforms 3/4 at Victoria should be through trains from Liverpool to Leeds and beyond.