Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[chorleychump]

Rotheram should stop hanging on to Burnhams coat tails. Building a new line from Liverpool to Manchester Airport whilst he cannot build any form of line to Liverpool Airport is ludicrous. Any benefits from this will be purely in Manchesters favour.

Any thoughts about cooperation for the greater good of the region quashed by the post above.

 

[frodshamfella]

Long-haul is part of the global economy, therefore it is natural that if we want to have a redistribution away from London we cannot just focus in Heathrow. It should also be remembered that Heathrow is at capacity. Again, this all sounds like jealousy that there is demand for flights between New York, Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Atlanta, the Middle East and Africa every day (including 3 Emirates A380s per day) at Manchester. That is not Heathrow, that is Manchester. There are then cities like Shanghai, Bangkok, San Francisco and others which are expected soon.

People in Liverpool probably do want connections to those flights, and Manchester is much easier than Heathrow from Liverpool.

Certainly Liverpool business will want those connections from the long-haul.

Put your head in the sand if you like, but really short-haul needs toning down for more sustainable alternatives and long-haul then becomes the only air game in town.

Not connecting Liverpool to Manchester Airport in a fast way would be a big big mistake.

Sorry I don't agree, this idea is about connecting cities. I've already said Manchester Airport is already connected very well, and most people arrive by car as they leave from home, this proposal will not help this. You come across as purely a Manchester Airport supporter with no interest on anywhere else in the north.

 

[thealexweb]

Why? TPE has already proven a 185 can do Liverpool to Manchester (no stops) in 29 mins no?

 

[Nottingham59]

Why? TPE has already proven a 185 can do Liverpool to Manchester (no stops) in 29 mins no?

It's only 31.5 track miles. The aspiration should be to do that journey in less than 20 minutes. (1m to accelerate to 100mph at 1m/s2; 18mins to cover 30 miles at 100mph; 1m to decelerate to a stop at 1m/s2.)

 

[HSTEd]

The limiting factor of journey times between Manchester and Liverpool is not the physical capability of rolling stock.

The limit is that we have two track railways with piles of stations that require comparatively high intensity stopping services to serve.

Your choices are essentially to de-facto close several intermediate stations, or build a new line.
Even via Manchester Airport the distance Liverpool-Warrington-AIrport-Manchester is only about 62km or so.

With two intermediate stops, modern trains could do it in 25 minutes or so.
And most importantly, could do it reliably at any frequency that was desired (at least until we get to 10tph or more).

 

[Nottingham59]

The limiting factor of journey times between Manchester and Liverpool is not the physical capability of rolling stock.

The limit is that we have two track railways with piles of stations that require comparatively high intensity stopping services to serve.

Your choices are essentially to de-facto close several intermediate stations, or build a new line.
Even via Manchester Airport the distance Liverpool-Warrington-AIrport-Manchester is only about 62km or so.

With two intermediate stops, modern trains could do it in 25 minutes or so.
And most importantly, could do it reliably at any frequency that was desired (at least until we get to 10tph or more).

Totally agree. That's why Liverpool to Manchester needs additional lines. It seems to me that the cheapest and most cost-effective way of doing this will be passing loops of the Chat Moss route, rather than building a whole new line.

In particular:

• I think there is space for a third track from West of Earlstown to East of Newton-le-Willows, to allow the hourly stoppers to lurk on a bi-directional centre line, allowing faster trains to pass. There might even be space for two extra lines, to allow a full quadding of that section.
• Similarly, there seems to be space to the north of Patricroft and Eccles stations for a third fast line to allow overtaking, though some minimal demolition might be required here.
• Quad all the way from Broad Green to Huyton Junction. I don't suppose it would be worth grade separating Huyton Junction, though.

Looking at freight, it may be that the cheapest way to improve passenger capacity on the Chat Moss route would be to tell Drax to import their biomass through the Humber Ports instead of Liverpool.

 

[HSTEd]

Totally agree. That's why Liverpool to Manchester needs additional lines. It seems to me that the cheapest and most cost-effective way of doing this will be passing loops of the Chat Moss route, rather than building a whole new line.

I can't agree on upgrading the Chat Moss, even ignoring its fundamental limitations (due to the questionable quality of the Chat Moss crossing etc) it is a very highly built up area.
Substantial demolition and disruptive reconstruction work would be necessary to achieve enough extra track work to meaningfully improve matters.

In particular:

• I think there is space for a third track from West of Earlstown to East of Newton-le-Willows, to allow the hourly stoppers to lurk on a bi-directional centre line, allowing faster trains to pass. There might even be space for two extra lines, to allow a full quadding of that section.

What if we want more than hourly stoppers?
The line west of Newton le Willows is essentially entirely in urban terrain.
A third track might work for a hourly service, but even then it will impose major timetabling limitations since only one stopper can use the track in one direction at a time.

• Similarly, there seems to be space to the north of Patricroft and Eccles stations for a third fast line to allow overtaking, though some minimal demolition might be required here.

Two trains closing head on, each at 100mph will approach each other at about 5.3km per minute.
Overtaking lanes are of questionable usefulness in a high traffic density situation because you will run into the train coming the other way.
Again, it might technically allow you to run a faster non-stop train, but it will cause serious timetabling issues that could quite easily render it unworkable and unreliable.

• Quad all the way from Broad Green to Huyton Junction. I don't suppose it would be worth grade separating Huyton Junction, though.

Without a flyover at Huyton junction that doesn't gain you very much, the flat junction for the St Helens line just moves closer to Broad Green.
I don't think it gets you much in the way of actual capacity on the Chat Moss route.

Looking at freight, it may be that the cheapest way to improve passenger capacity on the Chat Moss route would be to tell Drax to import their biomass through the Humber Ports instead of Liverpool.

Well in a handful of years Drax will go anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.
The environmental credentials of biomass have more or less disintegrated.

 

[Nottingham59]

What if we want more than hourly stoppers?
The line west of Newton le Willows is essentially entirely in urban terrain.

NLW and Earlstown are about halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Quadding just that section, if feasible, would allow 2tph stoppers.

A third track might work for a hourly service, but even then it will impose major timetabling limitations since only one stopper can use the track in one direction at a time.

I know. But that's what DfT is doing between Marsden and Huddersfield.

 

[HSTEd]

NLW and Earlstown are about halfway between Manchester and Liverpool. Quadding that just section, if feasible, would allow 2tph stoppers.

Assuming a two-minute technical headway, and assuming you outright force the stopper to wait, the bypassing train needs enough track for about ~4 minutes of running at line speed.

At 100mph that is something like ~10km of quad track.
To do it with only a couple of kilometres would force the train to slow right down to the point that it is not much faster than simply stopping at the station.

If you want overtaking without inserting several minutes of waiting into the stopper schedule you will need more than 10km. If you want margin for delays and such, you again require more track

If it was so easy to get these advantages, we would see this solution a lot more!

I know. But that's what DfT is doing between Marsden and Huddersfield.

I'm not sure we can look to TPRU for much inspiration if I'm honest.

 

[8A Rail]

Totally agree. That's why Liverpool to Manchester needs additional lines. It seems to me that the cheapest and most cost-effective way of doing this will be passing loops of the Chat Moss route, rather than building a whole new line.

In particular:

• I think there is space for a third track from West of Earlstown to East of Newton-le-Willows, to allow the hourly stoppers to lurk on a bi-directional centre line, allowing faster trains to pass. There might even be space for two extra lines, to allow a full quadding of that section.
• Similarly, there seems to be space to the north of Patricroft and Eccles stations for a third fast line to allow overtaking, though some minimal demolition might be required here.
• Quad all the way from Broad Green to Huyton Junction. I don't suppose it would be worth grade separating Huyton Junction, though.

Looking at freight, it may be that the cheapest way to improve passenger capacity on the Chat Moss route would be to tell Drax to import their biomass through the Humber Ports instead of Liverpool.

I don't think you know the line well enough unfortunately.

There is no space between Earlestown Station and Newton le Willows station for any additional lines due to the existing built up area either side of the line. Also there is Newton Railway Bridge / Viaduct as that is only two line structure and is an original L&M structure too. The line leading to that viaduct is on an embankment and Newton le Willows Station is built on that embankment after the viaduct. Going further east, the two bridges over the railway, one being the M6, only allow two tracks underneath.

As for quad all the way to Broadgreen from Huyton, that will not change anything (or increase capacity) as the 'passing' loops are already in place being the up and down slow lines between Roby and Huyton Junctions. All you are doing is moving the bottle neck to Broadgreen. May be you could suggest removing the M62 road bridge at Broadgreen and welcome back the four track section through Olive Mount cutting again but where is the road traffic going to go? Utter chaos!!!

As for freight, biomass is not the only commodity that is moved by rail on that section, you also have scrap, stone and intermodal, with the latter likely to increase again. Please remember, emphasis is taking freight off the road not decrease it especially to and from the docks. Likewise Peel Holdings are also increasing the rail capacity at Seaforth C.T. If you wish to have extra road traffic especially more trucks on the roads, then I'm happy for you to have it instead.

I will not express any thoughts on the Patricroft to Eccles section, as I do not know the area well enough on either side of the line except that M602 runs along side it for some part and there are certainly residential area's on the south side of the line too.

Please also remember that although the L&M line was built to connect the two cities together, it was also to serve the various communities in between too and that need is still there today, even more so but presently there is an hourly rubbish service on it which is NOT serving the needs of those communities. Again the emphasis for that line is to increase the frequency to at least two stopper trains per hour, that lone would benefit both cities.

Likewise any HS line being considered to link the two cities, which city do you think it will benefit more from it? I certainly don't think it is the one that sits on the River Mersey, therefore I don't see no point in considering it!

Finally I've noted there seems to be a number of members adding their views to this thread (which they are entitled too) but don't even come from or reside in the areas in question - I find that odd. Sorry!

 

[HSTEd]

As for freight, biomass is not the only commodity that is moved by rail on that section, you also have scrap, stone and intermodal, with the latter likely to increase again. Please remember, emphasis is taking freight off the road not decrease it especially to and from the docks. Likewise Peel Holdings are also increasing the rail capacity at Seaforth C.T. If you wish to have extra road traffic especially more trucks on the roads, then I'm happy for you to have it instead.

Well we could probably subsidise barge transport from Liverpool Docks to Trafford Park for far less than any rail solution would cost for expanding freight traffic.
Aggregates from north wales could sail straight up the canal as required.

Such solutions would enable major improvements in freight traffic, yet also wouldn't use up precious paths.

Likewise any HS line being considered to link the two cities, which city do you think it will benefit more from it? I certainly don't think it is the one that sits on the River Mersey, therefore I don't see no point in considering it!A n

A new line is the only way you will ever get an improved stopping service on either the Chat Moss route or the CLC.

Additionally, both Manchester (City of Manchester as well as several other boroughs) and Liverpool sit on the River Mersey

EDIT:

41 freight (ZZ)trains in the timetable passing Lea Green today.
18 of them are associated with Drax biomass traffic
3 are departmental.

Eliminating Drax traffic would basically wipe out freight traffic east of Newton Le Willows and cut it in half west of there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I will not express any thoughts on the Patricroft to Eccles section, as I do not know the area well enough on either side of the line except that M602 runs along side it for some part and there are certainly residential area's on the south side of the line too.

The original Liverpool and Manchester Railway line section between the inner-Salford area and Eccles that runs parallel to the M602 once had three railway stations at Cross Lane, Seedley and Weaste.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The terminals at Speke and Ringway are 24 miles apart (the runway ends even less).
There is no business basis for having two international airports so close together.
The airports are (almost) connected by a straight if half-abandoned railway line.
Liverpool has about a third of the traffic of Manchester, with a much reduced mostly European leisure network, and poorer road/rail links.
From my direction (Chester/North Wales) Liverpool is no easier to reach than Manchester because the Mersey is in the way.
The two airports are not at all equal in economic significance, and Liverpool airport essentially acts as an overspill from Manchester.
Rant over...

 

[frodshamfella]

The terminals at Speke and Ringway are 24 miles apart (the runway ends even less).
There is no business basis for having two international airports so close together.
The airports are (almost) connected by a straight if half-abandoned railway line.
Liverpool has about a third of the traffic of Manchester, with a much reduced mostly European leisure network, and poorer road/rail links.
From my direction (Chester/North Wales) Liverpool is no easier to reach than Manchester because the Mersey is in the way.
The two airports are not at all equal in economic significance, and Liverpool airport essentially acts as an overspill from Manchester.
Rant over...

What do you mean by Liverpool Airport being much reduced leisure traffic..it's actually much increasing. It has poorer road and rail, and this needs improving, because of the passenger growth. The terminal in Liverpool Airport has also.been voted by.Which the best the UK.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The terminals at Speke and Ringway are 24 miles apart (the runway ends even less).

There is little comparison between the actual residential populations of those two areas.

In the 2011 census, Ringway civil parish had a population of 103. Speke, on the other hand, being developed for local authority housing in the last century has , shall we say, considerably more in comparison by a very large factor.

This takes me back to my 1960's folk-singing days in which Speke gets a mention in the chorus...
"Don't want to go to Kirkby,
Don't want to go to Speke,
Don't want to go from all I know
In Back Buchanan Street"

 

[childwallblues]

Using the stats pulled from the respective wikipedia articles for 2023, Liverpool Airport is still ~17% down on 2019 figures however, whereas the figure for Manchester AIrport is ~4.5%

Passenger numbers at the former are around a seventh those at the latter.
I'm not sure the two airports are really comparable in terms of importance or need for high capacity public transport.

Jet 2 moved into Liverpool Airport in March operating initially to 25 destinations with more to come in 2025. This has increased passenger numbers .

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

To those advocating a dedicated rail link to Liverpool Airport I say you need to be more realistic. Experience in many different places has shown that to make such a link worthwhile you need a critical mass, as measured by airport passenger numbers, of approximately 10 million pa. Liverpool is just approaching half that number (should reach 5 million this year) and its long-term plan talks only of potentially reaching 11 million by 2050. And its location isn't close to any optimum route for a new rail line to anywhere. It's only chance for such a scheme in the near to medium term will be something less ambitious (cheaper) which also creates a regenerative effect for nearby districts ie Halewood and Speke.

So do a Metrolink and convert Liverpool (Central)-Hunt's Cross to a genuine light rail line with a route completely segregated from the national network east of South Parkway and routed to serve the aforementioned districts en route to the airport.

As for those whose interest is clearly concentrated solely on improving local journey opportunities: that's fine but even that needs additional track capacity, otherwise you end up with more horribly compromised timetables such as has existed for years on the CLC route. And talk of improving the Chat Moss route is fanciful: the clue is in the word "Moss", it's unsuitable for anything faster than now and widening is a non-starter.

In short such improvements need some sort of new build: providing a route that allows medium and longer distance traffic to be completely separated from purely local traffic provides plenty of additional capacity for both. But continuing to bodge the existing network will achieve very little and the minimal capacity gains that may be created will soon be swallowed up by demand. The alternative to new rail lines is new motorways, surely nobody wants that? Or would people rather see demand for travel actively suppressed in some way?

 

[stephen rp]

Well we could probably subsidise barge transport from Liverpool Docks to Trafford Park for far less than any rail solution would cost for expanding freight traffic.
Aggregates from north wales could sail straight up the canal as required.

Such solutions would enable major improvements in freight traffic, yet also wouldn't use up precious paths.

Just cause lengthy traffic delays in Warrington.

Transhipping containers from a post Panamax vessel to a canal barge, to keep the containers off the M57/M62 and M58/M6 only to have them put on HGVs near the middle of Manchester, and delay the containers, really makes little sense.

 

[8A Rail]

Well we could probably subsidise barge transport from Liverpool Docks to Trafford Park for far less than any rail solution would cost for expanding freight traffic.
Aggregates from north wales could sail straight up the canal as required.

Such solutions would enable major improvements in freight traffic, yet also wouldn't use up precious paths.

A new line is the only way you will ever get an improved stopping service on either the Chat Moss route or the CLC.

Additionally, both Manchester (City of Manchester as well as several other boroughs) and Liverpool sit on the River Mersey

EDIT:

41 freight (ZZ)trains in the timetable passing Lea Green today.
18 of them are associated with Drax biomass traffic
3 are departmental.

Eliminating Drax traffic would basically wipe out freight traffic east of Newton Le Willows and cut it in half west of there.

First, I am glad you have no part to play in any grand ideas of improving the railways!!! Freight traffic would be totally eliminated from the railways!!

I have a better idea for you, when don't you just suggest eliminate the City of Liverpool / Merseyside completely, then don't need for road, rail, air and water facilities and tell the people to move to Manchester and other places, that will solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop, save a lot of money and stop having these fanciful ideas / schemes being thought about by politicians who are far removed from reality.

The original Liverpool and Manchester Railway line section between the inner-Salford area and Eccles that runs parallel to the M602 once had three railway stations at Cross Lane, Seedley and Weaste.

That I knew already, in fact L&M line has had a total of 32 stations along the line at one time or another (https://www.rainhilltrials.org/lm-stations.html) but my reference was to existing area at this present time.

 

[The Planner]

EDIT:

41 freight (ZZ)trains in the timetable passing Lea Green today.
18 of them are associated with Drax biomass traffic
3 are departmental.

Eliminating Drax traffic would basically wipe out freight traffic east of Newton Le Willows and cut it in half west of there.

Until Parkside and Port Salford open.

 

[Nottingham59]

Likewise any HS line being considered to link the two cities, which city do you think it will benefit more from it? I certainly don't think it is the one that sits on the River Mersey, therefore I don't see no point in considering it!

I find that view hugely disappointing. A faster, more capacious and more reliable rail network between Manchester and Liverpool would benefit both cities. That's what agglomeration benefits are all about. But if you really do mean that a scheme that would benefit Liverpool should not be considered at all, if it would benefit Manchester more, then there really is no hope. Far better to invest in better rail links between Manchester and Leeds instead.

 

[Tremzinho]

The reality is that this £17Bn scheme is unlikely to ever get off the drawing board, the BCR will be too low to justify it unless HS2 is extended to the north again.

If somehow it goes ahead, it will suck up all for a piece of infrastructure that is principally designed to benefit Manchester.

Electrifying and upgrading the CLC route would have an immediate impact on capacity and journey times for large numbers of people commuting to Liverpool and Manchester, while leaving plenty of cash to spare for other rail priorities around the North West.

A shiny new route from Liverpool to Manchester airport might be nice to have, but the opportunity cost is to sideline dozens of other rail projects that could benefit far more people and make a greater contribution to the region’s economy.

 

[Topological]

Sorry I don't agree, this idea is about connecting cities. I've already said Manchester Airport is already connected very well, and most people arrive by car as they leave from home, this proposal will not help this. You come across as purely a Manchester Airport supporter with no interest on anywhere else in the north.

The UK developed 200 years ago, centres are focused on agglomeration forces founded in the transportation options of the time. The world has moved on and so must we. The old rivalries between towns need to be set aside.

London works because it is large. Yet look within and there are many towns which could look jealously at the city and feel that they should have received more support. Yet, London has evolved with a global core that provides strong spillover to all those who can access its services with sensible 21st century travel times.

There is simply no way for Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield et al. to compete with each other and still compete on the global stage. The days when Manchester could be Cotton and Liverpool a port are long gone. If the cities do not work together they will surely perish. Thankfully those in charge are quite happy for Manchester to be the centre of a wider Northern region. The Northern Powerhouse was not developed and perpetuated for no reason.

If anyone seriously thinks Liverpool would suffer from better links with the UKs 2nd biggest airport then...

In terms of London, maybe just view Liverpool as Luton or Stansted. Both of those are growing fast despite the long-haul being centred on a different airport in the London region.

The North West needs to focus its offering as a whole rather than this petty city level bickering.

A fast connection via the airport seems like the best way to spread the benefits, even if personally I would gain more from Manchester concentrating its connectivity benefits.

 

[HSTEd]

Until Parkside and Port Salford open.

Forgive me if I an deeply cynical about how much freight traffic will be generated by these facilities in practice

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The UK developed 200 years ago, centres are focused on agglomeration forces founded in the transportation options of the time. The world has moved on and so must we. The old rivalries between towns need to be set aside.

Was it the transportation of cotton from the USA into the Port of Liverpool for use in the Lancashire cotton industrial mills that was one of the reasons why the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was first built?

 

[Greybeard33]

Transhipping containers from a post Panamax vessel to a canal barge, to keep the containers off the M57/M62 and M58/M6 only to have them put on HGVs near the middle of Manchester, and delay the containers, really makes little sense.

Indeed Peel seems to have pretty much given up on the idea of Port Salford as a canal port. The economics of transhipping containers from Liverpool just do not work. The low capacity feeder service that used to operate up the canal to Irlam was touted as the forerunner of a Port Salford service, but even that was killed off several years ago.

 

[HSTEd]

I have a better idea for you, when don't you just suggest eliminate the City of Liverpool / Merseyside completely, then don't need for road, rail, air and water facilities and tell the people to move to Manchester and other places, that will solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop, save a lot of money and stop having these fanciful ideas / schemes being thought about by politicians who are far removed from reality

I'm not sure about building a railway line from Liverpool to Manchester is in any way equivalent to demanding the destruction of Liverpool.

Incidentally, it wouldn't save money because someone would have to pay about £150bn to replace the infrastructure that would be abandoned.

I dont see how a modern railway is a fanciful scheme, just because it isn't designed solely for the purpose of enriching Liverpool at the expense of everyone else.

To be relevant rail has to provide the connections that passengers want. Passengers want transport to Manchester Airport.

There is not some Mancunion conspiracy to destroy Liverpool airport as part of some nefarious plot.
Even large numbers of Liverpudlians want transportation to Manchester Airport. Should they be denied the opportunity, purely in an attempt to force them to use a less popular airport on the other side of an arbitrary line?

 

[frodshamfella]

I'm not sure about building a railway line from Liverpool to Manchester is in any way equivalent to demanding the destruction of Liverpool.

Incidentally, it wouldn't save money because someone would have to pay about £150bn to replace the infrastructure that would be abandoned.

I dont see how a modern railway is a fanciful scheme, just because it isn't designed solely for the purpose of enriching Liverpool at the expense of everyone else.

To be relevant rail has to provide the connections that passengers want. Passengers want transport to Manchester Airport.

There is not some Mancunion conspiracy to destroy Liverpool airport as part of some nefarious plot.
Even large numbers of Liverpudlians want transportation to Manchester Airport. Should they be denied the opportunity, purely in an attempt to force them to use a less popular airport on the other side of an arbitrary line?

Passengers also want to travel to Liverpool Airport, and better than it is now. We need to build this for the future of the NW, these passengers are not just from LCR either, they come from Manchester and beyond. A simple link be it Merseyrail or from the mainline would do the trick and give stations to 2 other areas too

.If you want to build a super fast train from Liverpool to Manchester via Manchester Airport,.do it, but I think the route is an expensive mistake, when an upgraded and electrified CLC would do the job very well. There is a danger this scheme will never happen due to massive cost

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Was it the transportation of cotton from the USA into the Port of Liverpool for use in the Lancashire cotton industrial mills that was one of the reasons why the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was first built?

Quite probably, but the cost of transhipment of goods at Liverpool docks and their conveyance to/from Manchester by railway soon became one of the reasons why the Manchester Ship Canal was subsequently built.

 

[childwallblues]

I don't think you know the line well enough unfortunately.

There is no space between Earlestown Station and Newton le Willows station for any additional lines due to the existing built up area either side of the line. Also there is Newton Railway Bridge / Viaduct as that is only two line structure and is an original L&M structure too. The line leading to that viaduct is on an embankment and Newton le Willows Station is built on that embankment after the viaduct. Going further east, the two bridges over the railway, one being the M6, only allow two tracks underneath.

As for quad all the way to Broadgreen from Huyton, that will not change anything (or increase capacity) as the 'passing' loops are already in place being the up and down slow lines between Roby and Huyton Junctions. All you are doing is moving the bottle neck to Broadgreen. May be you could suggest removing the M62 road bridge at Broadgreen and welcome back the four track section through Olive Mount cutting again but where is the road traffic going to go? Utter chaos!!!

As for freight, biomass is not the only commodity that is moved by rail on that section, you also have scrap, stone and intermodal, with the latter likely to increase again. Please remember, emphasis is taking freight off the road not decrease it especially to and from the docks. Likewise Peel Holdings are also increasing the rail capacity at Seaforth C.T. If you wish to have extra road traffic especially more trucks on the roads, then I'm happy for you to have it instead.

I will not express any thoughts on the Patricroft to Eccles section, as I do not know the area well enough on either side of the line except that M602 runs along side it for some part and there are certainly residential area's on the south side of the line too.

Please also remember that although the L&M line was built to connect the two cities together, it was also to serve the various communities in between too and that need is still there today, even more so but presently there is an hourly rubbish service on it which is NOT serving the needs of those communities. Again the emphasis for that line is to increase the frequency to at least two stopper trains per hour, that lone would benefit both cities.

Likewise any HS line being considered to link the two cities, which city do you think it will benefit more from it? I certainly don't think it is the one that sits on the River Mersey, therefore I don't see no point in considering it!

Finally I've noted there seems to be a number of members adding their views to this thread (which they are entitled too) but don't even come from or reside in the areas in question - I find that odd. Sorry!

8A Rail is absolutely correct in everything that he says. I live less than half a mile from Broad Green Station and any four tracking to the area was lost when the M62 was built.
Electrification and modern signalling of the CLC may improve things. The line has four trains per hour through Castlefield. There is a westbound loop between Irlam and Glazebrook and plenty of room at Warrington for an eastbound loop. It was also originally four tracked over the Barton Bridge.