Long-term solutions for the Manchester bottleneck post-HS2.

[GJMarshy]

Been quite a talking int over on SSC recently, thought you guys would have some valuable input on the mater. Assuming the conditional output for future East-West intercity services through Manchester is that they must travel via Piccadilly (which I'm well-versed is the condition) how do we go about this in a post-HS2 world where 2b (which was to be used for NPR) is highly unlikely to go ahead without HS2 attached, since the BCR won't stand a chance given the 400m station & speed specifications.

Upgrading castlefield seems to be out of the picture now, with 15/16 cancelled, and new/existing developments rendering 4-tracking near impossible, without closing the line for potentially multiple years, the economic disruption of that, and the cost of compulsory purchase orders in order to do it.

To me it seems something has to go into a tunnel, and that a simple point-point intercity bypass tunnel with a stop at Piccadilly makes the most sense, without needing to create swathes of grade-separated junctions which you'd need to funnel commuter/local services through it, which would use multiple lines.

So I put it to you guys, what's your preferred outcome, and what do you see as the likely outcome by say 2045?

Marshy.

 

[Bevan Price]

Unfortunately the local politicians would raise he*l, but in my view, the problems are mainly caused because there are too many long distance services to & from Manchester Airport - with too many interactions - and potential delays caused elsewhere over a wide range of the National rail network. It would be better for the Airport to be served by purely local shuttles between Manchester (Victoria & Piccadilly) and the Airport.
Many people need to change in London to reach their airports, so why should Manchester be any different.

 

[PTR 444]

Unfortunately the local politicians would raise he*l, but in my view, the problems are mainly caused because there are too many long distance services to & from Manchester Airport - with too many interactions - and potential delays caused elsewhere over a wide range of the National rail network. It would be better for the Airport to be served by purely local shuttles between Manchester (Victoria & Piccadilly) and the Airport.
Many people need to change in London to reach their airports, so why should Manchester be any different.

The thing is, Manchester Airport is the most convenient place for terminating trains from the west, since there is nowhere else suitable for reversing without reducing capacity. To make the Airport - Piccadilly - Victoria corridor self-contained, you’d most likely need to rebuild Victoria with double the number of platforms, mostly west-facing bays.

 

[ShadowKnight]

A balance between direct services and changing between trains. Like it or not a direct service is more attractive on the onset to the general public. Making an interchange more seamless and convenient will make people more likely to be willing to change trains. Tbh direct trains to Manchester airport because of having to haul luggage about will probably put people off if no serious marketing campaign/Manchester airport express is created to make it seem less of an obstacle.

Just because In London people change trains often doesn't mean people elsewhere who aren't living like sardines day to day will be amenable to it. For example Heathrow central bus station serves coaches from almost every corner of the country as direct services are wayyyyy more appealing than going into central and then suffering on crowded public transport back out to Heathrow.

The same with Manchester, if someone is going to be on a small, cramped and busy train to the airport then it probably should be direct or they might as well drive/get a lift.

 

[HSTEd]

A surface reconstruction of Piccadilly is likely to be the biggest bang for the buck you can get.

If you use the old goods station access to the east of the trainshed, and possibly revive 15/16, you can probably free enough space for several 400m platforms. That solves your capacity issue on London and Birmingham services and provides you buckets of room to run Leeds trains at the maximum length possible without preventing stacking.

You could reorganise the throat to untangle everything and have paired by use tracks to all destinations, baring a short section of bottleneck near the Styal Line divergence.

 

[The Planner]

There is already fag packet talk of a Platform 0.

 

[Along the bay]

There is already fag packet talk of a Platform 0.

Presumably the siding on the end of Platform 1?

 

[The Planner]

Presumably the siding on the end of Platform 1?

Alongside the main shed.

 

[mike57]

There is already fag packet talk of a Platform 0.

On several recent visits I noticed there appears to be room, and its probably an easy win.

 

[HSTEd]

On several recent visits I noticed there appears to be room, and its probably an easy win.

Old photographs of the station complex show that the area to the east of the trainshed was part of a goods yard that stretched up in the direction of Piccadilly Gardens.

The extra width in the throat would be especially useful to untangling things though ofcourse.

 

[GJMarshy]

Hmm, I'm not sure there's any quick wins to be gained by extra terminus platforms to the north in respect to increasing east-west intercity capacity through the station. Someone mentioned routing of fast services to the Airport to help relieve Castlefield. This might be a start, supposing you re-purpose Castlefield, Styal & the Chord as an Airport-Vic metro-style shuttle service, but again, that doesn't meet the conditional output of concentrating intercity services on Piccadilly.

Unlike London, where roughly the same population live within a 100km radius of the centre, the North is more poly-cetric, with the idea of the Northern Powerhouse being that the entire area becomes commutable. People won't make a commute from say Stockport to Leeds or Liverpool if that involves getting one of only 5tph (Metrolink) from Picc-Vic to make a connection, especially when trains are much mure infrequent in the North, so timing connections becomes more important. You can effectively treat the entire South East urban area as a rail network due to this. You can't do the same for the North of England.

I think that's why TfN and GMCA made the decision to make that a condition, along with the de-scoping of Victoria from 16+ platforms to only 4 through platforms, and soon only 1 terminating platform (from the eastern direction) That leaves a huge lack of terminating capacity from the west, hence another reason many services are run through Pic platforms 13/14 to be turned around at the airport.

Trouble is, even if in the short-medium term we adopted a service pattern like the one below, politically it is very difficult as so many towns have inadvertently gained direct airport connections which only came about because of operational benefit. We can't now take those away very easily.

However, if by 2045 a new dedicated route for East-West intercity trains via Piccadilly existed in the form of a relatively short tunnel (compared to the 12km HS2 one) from Salford (Oldfield Rd area) to Ardwick/Ashburys, we could retain direct airport connections in the form of an S-Bahn, branch-like strucure, emanating from the Styal Line/Castlefield (12-14tph reliably) splitting off to different destinations, and forming a better commuter network in the process.

End-to-end journeys with minimal journey times would require a change at Piccadilly, since the direct airport services are replaced with stoppers. That is much more attractive though if you know there'll be a train every 4-5mins, making connections easier, and bringing us closer to treating the railway as a "network" as seen in the South East.

Below I've attached the "Network2030" concept from myself (and a few others) at NorthOnTrack, a transport/infrastructure think tank on this (and other) issues in the North, as well as a diagram showing how such a bypass tunnel would work in terms of connectivity ad creating additional capacity on the surface.

Marshy.View attachment Manchester Network Reshuffle.png

(There are more detailed alignments too, although the "tunnel" alignment itself has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as of course you'd need detailed studies of existing underground infrastructure under the city which would have some effect on the alignment)

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does it really matter about the buisness case ? I thought the goverment had set aside £11 billion for between Manchester & Liverpool so that HS2 bit could still be built as planned if Manchester wanted to ?

Anyway I do also agree that some sort of East to West tunnel is the best way forward and that new above ground platforms to the East of the train shed for London bound 400m HS2
services would be the best solution for terminating services.

What I do potentially see happening is Andy Burnham insisting that it is built as planned and we all getting something inferior to what could be!

What I would love to see is significantly much more investment as the route reaches Liverpool rather than being constrained to the East of Warrington and a new station in Liverpool. Ideally upon the old Exchange site and capable of recieving 400m long HS2 trains

 

[HSTEd]

Hmm, I'm not sure there's any quick wins to be gained by extra terminus platforms to the north in respect to increasing east-west intercity capacity through the station. Someone mentioned routing of fast services to the Airport to help relieve Castlefield. This might be a start, supposing you re-purpose Castlefield, Styal & the Chord as an Airport-Vic metro-style shuttle service, but again, that doesn't meet the conditional output of concentrating intercity services on Piccadilly.

Unlike London, where roughly the same population live within a 100km radius of the centre, the North is more poly-cetric, with the idea of the Northern Powerhouse being that the entire area becomes commutable. People won't make a commute from say Stockport to Leeds or Liverpool if that involves getting one of only 5tph (Metrolink) from Picc-Vic to make a connection, especially when trains are much mure infrequent in the North, so timing connections becomes more important. You can effectively treat the entire South East urban area as a rail network due to this. You can't do the same for the North of England.

I think that's why TfN and GMCA made the decision to make that a condition, along with the de-scoping of Victoria from 16+ platforms to only 4 through platforms, and soon only 1 terminating platform (from the eastern direction) That leaves a huge lack of terminating capacity from the west, hence another reason many services are run through Pic platforms 13/14 to be turned around at the airport.

Trouble is, even if in the short-medium term we adopted a service pattern like the one below, politically it is very difficult as so many towns have inadvertently gained direct airport connections which only came about because of operational benefit. We can't now take those away very easily.

However, if by 2045 a new dedicated route for East-West intercity trains via Piccadilly existed in the form of a relatively short tunnel (compared to the 12km HS2 one) from Salford (Oldfield Rd area) to Ardwick/Ashburys, we could retain direct airport connections in the form of an S-Bahn, branch-like strucure, emanating from the Styal Line/Castlefield (12-14tph reliably) splitting off to different destinations, and forming a better commuter network in the process.

End-to-end journeys with minimal journey times would require a change at Piccadilly, since the direct airport services are replaced with stoppers. That is much more attractive though if you know there'll be a train every 4-5mins, making connections easier, and bringing us closer to treating the railway as a "network" as seen in the South East.

Below I've attached the "Network2030" concept from myself (and a few others) at NorthOnTrack, a transport/infrastructure think tank on this (and other) issues in the North, as well as a diagram showing how such a bypass tunnel would work in terms of connectivity ad creating additional capacity on the surface.

Marshy.View attachment 151009View attachment 151012
(There are more detailed alignments too, although the "tunnel" alignment itself has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as of course you'd need detailed studies of existing underground infrastructure under the city which would have some effect on the alignment)

Do you actually need a tunnel to do this though?
The HS2/NPR solution was for a terminal station with provisions for fast reversal of trains.

Now we have ATO and potentially autoreverse at our disposal, do we need a £10bn+ tunnel solution and underground station? Plus another new station in Salford.

The tunnel might be shorter than the one for HS2, but the underground station will add a substantial cost to the project.

Untangling the mass of spaghetti that are the tracks in Manchester might allow substantial increases in real capacity. We can probably force more trains through Castlefield if we can get present them reliably and get some more platform space at Piccadilly.

 

[GJMarshy]

Do you actually need a tunnel to do this though?
The HS2/NPR solution was for a terminal station with provisions for fast reversal of trains.

Now we have ATO and potentially autoreverse at our disposal, do we need a £10bn+ tunnel solution and underground station? Plus another new station in Salford.

The tunnel might be shorter than the one for HS2, but the underground station will add a substantial cost to the project.

The reversal plan for NPR services in the combined HS2/NPR terminus has been widely criticised within the industry for its ability to work effectively, especially given NPR would use highly congested, shared infrastructure across the pennines, whilst HS2 from Manchester-London/B'ham was entirely segregated. I don't think anyone outside the NIC actually believed timetabling them to work seamlessly would actually be practical.

Its a bit moot now anyway, since HS2 to Manchester is unlikely to happen in any of our working lifetimes, even if brought back we'd be looking at 2060-2070 for HS2+NPR as originally envisioned. I think a more phased approach seems more pragmatic given the dire straits faced on the rail network in the North of England.

This thread works on the assumption HS2 to Manchester isn't going ahead, in which case I can't see any way of resolving the bottleneck long-term without some sort of tunnel. One positive with the CrossNorth plan is the stations don't need to accommodate 400m sets, but a more conventional 240m, with less platforms too since it's through-running. Its underground station at piccadilly would likely cost less than half that of a combined 6 platform HS2/NPR 400m station with a box around 1km long! Even a surface station with all those viaducts would probably be equivalent to a 2 platform 240m sub-surface station on the same site. Swings and roundabouts I guess!

 

[HSTEd]

The reversal plan for NPR services in the combined HS2/NPR terminus has been widely criticised within the industry for its ability to work effectively, especially given NPR would use highly congested, shared infrastructure across the pennines, whilst HS2 from Manchester-London/B'ham was entirely segregated. I don't think anyone outside the NIC actually believed timetabling them to work seamlessly would actually be practical.

Its a bit moot now anyway, since HS2 to Manchester is unlikely to happen in any of our working lifetimes, even if brought back we'd be looking at 2060-2070 for HS2+NPR as originally envisioned. I think a more phased approach seems more pragmatic given the dire straits faced on the rail network in the North of England.

The problem is a phased approach can't really be applied to a multi billion pound tunnel and underground railway station!
You either build it or you don't, it wouldn't really work if you, for example, built two underground terminating platforms at Piccadilly as a "first phase".

Beyond that, building a tunnel doesn't help very much if you can't present trains to it efficiently due to the existing rats nest of flat junctions.
As for the timetabling, a lot of people criticised the station but termini are operated that intensively elsewhere in the world, and with computer control and maybe autoreverse I think it could be made to work to the required standard. The hard part would be presenting the trains to it through the complex trackwork outside the centre of Mancehster

This thread works on the assumption HS2 to Manchester isn't going ahead, in which case I can't see any way of resolving the bottleneck long-term without some sort of tunnel. One positive with the CrossNorth plan is the stations don't need to accommodate 400m sets, but a more conventional 240m, with less platforms too since it's through-running. Its underground station at piccadilly would likely cost less than half that of a combined 6 platform HS2/NPR 400m station with a box around 1km long! Even a surface station with all those viaducts would probably be equivalent to a 2 platform 240m sub-surface station on the same site. Swings and roundabouts I guess!

There was never going to be an underground through station, except in the dreams of Andy Burnham.
I doubt a surface station would come close, given that viaducts aren't really that expensive - which is why they are so common in places like China.

But ultimately I doubt we can expect anything much to happen in the end.

 

[sprunt]

Can someone explain the benefit obtained from reducing direct airport services? Presumably the airport passengers would still have to get to Piccadilly to change to the shuttles there, and those coming through the bottleneck now would still have to come through it to get to Piccadilly to change wouldn't they?

 

[cle]

What does platform zero at Piccadilly solve?

The issues are at the southern end, and the lines towards Airport/Stockport.

Ideas if Oxford Road and P15/16 aren't happening:
Stockport - could bays be built to terminate 2-3tph extra services from the south (Chester, Crewe, Sheffield/Buxton routes) - not perfect but would add some frequency and connectivity. So that most trains heading north of Stockport are longer and electric.
Victoria - western bay planned?
Salford Central - do the job properly. Include a bay/side extra if possible, to be able to turn some trains (and disperse people in Manchester better)
Wigan NW wired - send more than 2tph to this route, wire Rochdale per Stalybridge, and send electrics there at 4tph.

 

[Grimsby town]

Marshy.View attachment 151009View attachment 151012

(There are more detailed alignments too, although the "tunnel" alignment itself has to be taken with a pinch of salt, as of course you'd need detailed studies of existing underground infrastructure under the city which would have some effect on the alignment)

While I think something like this would be helpful, it doesn't solve the fact the lines it's feeding into are also pretty capacity constrained. I'd say its unlikely you'd get the 4 fast Manchester-Liverpool trains per hour desired for on the current Chat Moss line so you are looking at the tunnel + pretty significant upgrades of the Chat Moss route to the west. Thats before taking into account the significant development planned at Eccles which will require additional trains services, and potential for additonal stations along the route.

The other issue is the capacity to the south which this doesn't solve. The Stockport corridor is a complete mess. It'd need pretty significant upgrades just to start untangling the mess. That likely means an additional 2 lines to Slade Lane junction for the airport line and pairing lines by use rather than direction with the associated with rebuilds at Stockport, Heaton Chapel, and Levenshulme. Even that wouldn't remove all conflicts e.g. freight trains needing to cross all tracks to get from the Denton line to the Altrincham line.

 

[The Planner]

What does platform zero at Piccadilly solve?

The issues are at the southern end, and the lines towards Airport/Stockport.

Ideas if Oxford Road and P15/16 aren't happening:
Stockport - could bays be built to terminate 2-3tph extra services from the south (Chester, Crewe, Sheffield/Buxton routes) - not perfect but would add some frequency and connectivity. So that most trains heading north of Stockport are longer and electric.
Victoria - western bay planned?
Salford Central - do the job properly. Include a bay/side extra if possible, to be able to turn some trains (and disperse people in Manchester better)
Wigan NW wired - send more than 2tph to this route, wire Rochdale per Stalybridge, and send electrics there at 4tph.

Reversing sidings are being put in East and West of Victoria in the next two years, so nothing will happen to Vic or Salford.

 

[Grimsby town]

What does platform zero at Piccadilly solve?

Platforms 1-4 are very heavily used. I've sat on a few trains waiting outside of Piccadilly for platform space coming from Glossop/Huddersfield/Marple. Platforms 9/10/11/12 can't be used by many services due to them all being accessed by the same single track so the lower numbered platforms get far more usage. A platform zero would provide more reliability, less stacking of trains, and potentially allow an additional Glossop or Stalybridge service.

 

[GJMarshy]

While I think something like this would be helpful, it doesn't solve the fact the lines it's feeding into are also pretty capacity constrained. I'd say its unlikely you'd get the 4 fast Manchester-Liverpool trains per hour desired for on the current Chat Moss line so you are looking at the tunnel + pretty significant upgrades of the Chat Moss route to the west. Thats before taking into account the significant development planned at Eccles which will require additional trains services, and potential for additonal stations along the route.

The other issue is the capacity to the south which this doesn't solve. The Stockport corridor is a complete mess. It'd need pretty significant upgrades just to start untangling the mess. That likely means an additional 2 lines to Slade Lane junction for the airport line and pairing lines by use rather than direction with the associated with rebuilds at Stockport, Heaton Chapel, and Levenshulme. Even that wouldn't remove all conflicts e.g. freight trains needing to cross all tracks to get from the Denton line to the Altrincham line.

I take your point. It certainly doesn't solve everything. In terms of the southern lines that's a whole different kettle of fish. Id don't think we can expect one single infrastructure project to solve everything. Concentrating on east-west connectivity though, and reducing the usage of flat junctions and freeing up the existing network for a more s-bahn like operation, I think the tunnel plan would do a lot. The Salford Interchange site is already railway/brownfield land, so it'd act as a joining point for users north of Manchester to join the east-west intercity line, without funnelling them all through Castlefield or needing to feed piccadilly more (as you'd have to have done under previous NPR plans)

As far as I'm aware, the chat moss router is getting a ETCS signalling upgrade which should allow services to run closer together, meaning you'd get 3tph fast toward Liverpool, 2tph fast through Warrington Bank Quay toward Chester/North Wales, 1tph fast up toward Cumbria via Golborne, and 1-2 tph stoppers. There's a good chance also you'd have at least 2 fasts per hour calling at Eccles too to reduce the need for so many stoppers. There's far more stations toward the Liverpool end of course which is where things get trickier.

It would only be a "Phase 1" though, Chat Moss-TRU/Hope Valley, with all important provision for new lines in future increasing local capacity on Chat Moss and TRU. (Effectively HS3 but likely more piecemeal)

 

[The Planner]

As far as I'm aware, the chat moss router is getting a ETCS signalling upgrade which should allow services to run closer together, meaning you'd get 3tph fast toward Liverpool, 2tph fast through Warrington Bank Quay toward Chester/North Wales, 1tph fast up toward Cumbria via Golborne, and 1-2 tph stoppers. There's a good chance also you'd have at least 2 fasts per hour calling at Eccles too to reduce the need for so many stoppers. There's far more stations toward the Liverpool end of course which is where things get trickier.

It would only be a "Phase 1" though, Chat Moss-TRU/Hope Valley, with all important provision for new lines in future increasing local capacity on Chat Moss and TRU. (Effectively HS3 but likely more piecemeal)

Errr, not anytime soon it isnt.

 

[GJMarshy]

We are talking long-term here!

 

[Bantamzen]

Can someone explain the benefit obtained from reducing direct airport services? Presumably the airport passengers would still have to get to Piccadilly to change to the shuttles there, and those coming through the bottleneck now would still have to come through it to get to Piccadilly to change wouldn't they?

And herein lies the issue. Dumping airport passengers to make their own way towards Piccadilly to catch an onwards connection there will just lead to more platform congestion, which will lead to more delays at Manchester stations, which will all just manifest in the Castlefield corridor.

If P15/16 at Piccadilly are dead in the water at least remodeling Oxford Road to 4 through, accessible platforms would allow bit more flexibility. I have read elsewhere that remodelling is a possiblity later in the decade, I'm not sure this will involve all through platforms being made fully useable.

 

[HSTEd]

the associated with rebuilds at Stockport, Heaton Chapel, and Levenshulme. Even that wouldn't remove all conflicts e.g. freight trains needing to cross all tracks to get from the Denton line to the Altrincham line.

I think you could probably get away without rebuilding Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme, the two platforms would still be on lines in opposite (north/south) directions.
It might look a bit strange in the timetable but given I expect those stations are mostly used for local journeys anyway, I'm not sure if it matters if the service is asymmetric in terms of destination.

 

[The Planner]

We are talking long-term here!

Clearly, it was only re-signaled in the last decade. Its got another 30 to go before life expiry.

 

[GJMarshy]

And herein lies the issue. Dumping airport passengers to make their own way towards Piccadilly to catch an onwards connection there will just lead to more platform congestion, which will lead to more delays at Manchester stations, which will all just manifest in the Castlefield corridor.

If P15/16 at Piccadilly are dead in the water at least remodeling Oxford Road to 4 through, accessible platforms would allow bit more flexibility. I have read elsewhere that remodelling is a possiblity later in the decade, I'm not sure this will involve all through platforms being made fully useable.

Yes it could pose an issue traversing the over bridge to 13/14 etc. However, we have to remember airport traffic represents a very small minority of passenger rail journeys in the north. Most are for leisure/work. I'm not sure we should be prioritising the minority over the majority.

After all, people are not going to decide not to go on holiday because getting to the airport isn't a seamless journey. That's the case in many places, indeed global cities, but people still do it, because the means justify the end.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes it could pose an issue traversing the over bridge to 13/14 etc. However, we have to remember airport traffic represents a very small minority of passenger rail journeys in the north. Most are for leisure/work. I'm not sure we should be prioritising the minority over the majority.

After all, people are not going to decide not to go on holiday because getting to the airport isn't a seamless journey. That's the case in many places, indeed global cities, but people still do it, because the means justify the end.

You might want to consult the Greater Manchester councils on that matter, they do after all have a direct stake in the ownership of the airport and it does create a lot of employment in the area. And this becomes even more valuable as the airport expands. Its a valuable asset for the area, and making it more accessible and busier is only going to be good for Greater Manchester.

 

[GJMarshy]

You might want to consult the Greater Manchester councils on that matter, they do after all have a direct stake in the ownership of the airport and it does create a lot of employment in the area. And this becomes even more valuable as the airport expands. Its a valuable asset for the area, and making it more accessible and busier is only going to be good for Greater Manchester.

Trust me I have! And I fully understand that perspective.

The issue though is whilst it does have high employment, it isn't enough to justify skewing the entire northern rail network so suit it. The council seemingly believe it's a cash-cow for the region, but that comes for from a fear of not realising sunken-costs that have been spent on it. So far the Airport City business has failed to take off, since especially post-covid businesses prefer central locations in city centres where there's a wider pool of talent and local amenities. Office parks are a bit old-hat nowadays.

It's probably time the council admitted continuing to spend money on linking it to everywhere directly will not increase Greater Manchester's GDP, or see significant returns on the investment MCC and others put into it. Expand and upgrade the terminals fine, but business wise, that's focussed in the centre now. The sunken-cost fallacy aught to be recognised in this respect and priorities shifted accordingly.

 

[sprunt]

After all, people are not going to decide not to go on holiday because getting to the airport isn't a seamless journey. That's the case in many places, indeed global cities, but people still do it, because the means justify the end.

No, they're not going to decide not to go on holiday, but they are going to decide to drive to the airport instead.

And none of this answers my original question, which was how does making people change at Piccadilly contribute to solving the bottleneck when the trains to get people to Piccadilly will still have to go through the bottleneck?