Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Killingworth]

It's rather prescriptive, unusually so infact for a station.

Whether I agree with it or not, I have no choice BUT to lock out the rear unit, and it is far easier to do that at the beginning of the journey than at Grindleford or Bamford where it would cause a delay.

Thanks for the confirmation. Some platform extentions may be needed when Pacers are all replaced, but IL20 is very lightly loaded most nights so locking off the rear pair is probably sensible anyway.

Users of the Manchester - Sheffield trains are not happy with timekeeping at present, but don't blame the crews. Platforms 15 and 16 are so much needed. Over the last 8 weeks East Midlands have really copped for it, and it gets worse as the day goes on, see Recent Trains

It's been slightly better in the last bank holiday fortnight, but when the school holidays are over there'll be another big test.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Thanks for the confirmation. Some platform extentions may be needed when Pacers are all replaced, but IL20 is very lightly loaded most nights so locking off the rear pair is probably sensible anyway.

Users of the Manchester - Sheffield trains are not happy with timekeeping at present, but don't blame the crews. Platforms 15 and 16 are so much needed. Over the last 8 weeks East Midlands have really copped for it, and it gets worse as the day goes on, see Recent Trains

It's been slightly better in the last bank holiday fortnight, but when the school holidays are over there'll be another big test.

It has been getting better but the timetable just doesn't work. The best thing to do is remove anything from the Sheffield direction going beyond Manchester Piccadilly and force a change there. Not popular I know but better than regularly running late. ManPic-Norwich, ManAir-Cleethorpes and some other express like a ManPic-Lincoln would work well.

 

[furnessvale]

It has been getting better but the timetable just doesn't work. The best thing to do is remove anything from the Sheffield direction going beyond Manchester Piccadilly and force a change there. Not popular I know but better than regularly running late. ManPic-Norwich, ManAir-Cleethorpes and some other express like a ManPic-Lincoln would work well.

I do not have regular access to the junction but my house overlooks the Hope Valley line. Passenger trains are timed to virtually pass each other at New Mills South Junction. I am amazed at the number of times that trains actually do pass within seconds of each other at NMSJ, so are these trains from the Manchester direction making up time or not as regularly late as suggested?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has been getting better but the timetable just doesn't work. The best thing to do is remove anything from the Sheffield direction going beyond Manchester Piccadilly and force a change there. Not popular I know but better than regularly running late. ManPic-Norwich, ManAir-Cleethorpes and some other express like a ManPic-Lincoln would work well.

That would have the advantage of allowing the CLC to be recast to something that better serves its large number of local stations, such as 2tph Widnes, Warrington C then all stations to Manchester Airport, plus 2tph all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Urmston, Pic then all stations to the Airport. Any fast Liverpool-Manchester services would run via Chat Moss, while that option retains a fast service from Warrington to both ends. It could be run with pairs of Class 150/2s for enough capacity and fast boarding and alighting.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Isn't TPE's raison d'etre to be the airport operator? (in reply to a suggestion to terminate most at Picc or run via Vic)

 

[B&I]

Isn't TPE's raison d'etre to be the airport operator? (in reply to a suggestion to terminate most at Picc or run via Vic)

No, it's purpose is to transport people across the north of England, hence its name, despite the curious belief among many on this forum that getting people to their hols twice a year and servicing businessmen's egos every now and then is more important than most people's everyday journeys

 

[Greybeard33]

It's been slightly better in the last bank holiday fortnight, but when the school holidays are over there'll be another big test.

During the bank holiday week there were 3tph fewer than usual through Piccadilly 13/14, consequent to the Bolton line blockade. No trains on the Windsor Link, so a reduced risk of conflicts at Ordsall Lane.

 

[B&I]

Build Platforms 15 and 16, allowing trains to have longer dwell times at Picc without affecting others (if the other one is ready to go, just send it out in front and free the platform up) and solving the issue of long-distance services. It's dwell time that is causing the issue and is the only key difference on a low-speed corridor from local services. And do it before someone puts a block of posh flats in the way.

It is needed so much, and would bring so much benefit, that it amazes me (a) that there's so much debate on it (though debate away, debate is good ), and (b) that just about every other pet project seems to come first.

Is it that nobody likes boring projects that won't add extra services, just make existing ones more punctual?

The one other key change that should be done now is to recast depot route knowledge and through services to stop all non-emergency crew changes between Salford Crescent and Picc inclusive. Have them elsewhere at stations that have fewer services and/or more platforms (e.g. Bolton, the Airport, Stockport) if it *really* isn't feasible for them to be at the termini. It's ridiculous to plan for things that would cause a blockage along there.

I'd agree all that is necessary to run even a Thameslink-type service along Castlefield, but there needs to be a way of getting long-distance trains across Manchester (and across the north more generally), without getting clogged up amidst local services

 

[bunnahabhain]

That would have the advantage of allowing the CLC to be recast to something that better serves its large number of local stations, such as 2tph Widnes, Warrington C then all stations to Manchester Airport, plus 2tph all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Urmston, Pic then all stations to the Airport. Any fast Liverpool-Manchester services would run via Chat Moss, while that option retains a fast service from Warrington to both ends. It could be run with pairs of Class 150/2s for enough capacity and fast boarding and alighting.

Exactly, the only alternative to that I can think of is to triple or quadruple the line from Glazebrook to Birchwood to allow the fasts to overtake the slows around there.

 

[Greybeard33]

That would have the advantage of allowing the CLC to be recast to something that better serves its large number of local stations, such as 2tph Widnes, Warrington C then all stations to Manchester Airport, plus 2tph all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Urmston, Pic then all stations to the Airport. Any fast Liverpool-Manchester services would run via Chat Moss, while that option retains a fast service from Warrington to both ends. It could be run with pairs of Class 150/2s for enough capacity and fast boarding and alighting.

How do you propose to squeeze an additional 2tph from the CLC through Piccadilly 13/14? The CLC stoppers currently terminate at Oxford Road.

And where would Northern get the additional 150s to run under the wires to the Airport and replace the EMT 158s on the CLC?

 

[B&I]

I believe the long term TfGM strategy is to utilise HS2 and NPR infrastructure to get long distance services off the Castlefield corridor, thereby freeing up capacity for metro frequency local services on the Ordsall Chord, Bolton line, Chat Moss line and CLC line. The latest TfGM Local Rail Service Performance and Stations Update, dated 07 September 2018 ,which can be downloaded from https://www.greatermanchester-ca.go...583/metrolink_and_rail_networks_sub-committee, has a Strategy Update section including the following:

The "Northern Chord" would presumably be a east-north chord between the HS2 Manchester spur and the HS2 mainline, branching off the proposed NPR Manchester Airport to Liverpool route via Warrington, to enable trains from Piccadilly to Preston and beyond to be routed via the Airport HS station.

From hints in the TfGM 2040 Strategy report, tram-train/metro on the Atherton line would probably run under the city centre in a new east-west tunnel and be linked to Glossop/Hadfield services.

I can imagine that everyday commuters from the Bolton corridor to central Manchester will be overjoyed to.discover that their route will inclyde a 15 mile detour via the airport, almost as overjoyed as people crossing the Pennines from Warrington and Liverpool will be to make the same detour. I'm sure none at all will stick with existing slow services, which will probably still be quicker. Manchester may be the only.place in Earth where a local quirk of the laws of physics means that the normal correlation between distance travelled and journey time doesn't seem to apply. Has any dog ever been wagged with such force by its tail ?

As for tram-train, can someone please explain to me the advantage of turning 2 heavy rail lines, one electrified, into a lower capacity light rail system, when there would be a tunnel between them, which would I assume cost almost as much as a heavy rail tunnel ? At least the destruction of existing heavy rail lines to Altrincham and Bury could be partly justified by the obscolescence of the Bury electrification system and the reduced cost of an on-street connection between them.

Sometimes I think that Greater Manchester's transport planners are still suffering brain damage arising from the shock of central givernment kibboshing the Picc-Vic plan. It is the only way I can find to explain why they make so.many irrational decisions. Although the GM local authorities benefitting financially from increased airport traffic might have something to do with it as well

 

[B&I]

The is a document of the National Infrastructure Commission site about the options for Manchester Piccadilly which can be found here: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/u...-Piccadilly-Station-Redevelopment-Options.pdf

It shows two possible locations for the NPR station one in the under-croft below the level of the HS2 station north of the existing train shed and the other sits underneath the existing train shed. The latter would presumable constrain the redevelopment of Mayfield which it appears is necessary to provide funds for the other work and would involve a further junction with HS2 somewhere. Consequently the first option seems more probable with the NPR station box being at the same time at HS2 with tracks to Liverpool being connected essentially within the HS2 Station protected area. It is expected that NPR to Liverpool would use the HS2 line as far as the branch north close to Warrington. To the East the line would need to emerge below ground from the NPR station box and follow the Northern Chord route towards Leeds. (The metrolink also moves)

With the inter-relationship of projects it will be very complex. However the key point is that it supports your supposition that in the long term the services from Leeds and Liverpool will be replaced by NPR services if the plan goes ahead.

I hope that others can tell me where there is newer information.

Thank you for the reminder of the NIC document "Manchester Piccadilly Station Options Assessment". As this was issued in March 2016, it is now somewhat dated. I believe the latest published proposal for the long term redevelopment of the station is Manchester City Council's Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) March 2018 Draft Update, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/6868/manchester_piccadilly_srf_march_2018. This has the NPR platforms underground beneath the HS2 station, with the Metrolink platforms in between, and assumes that the NPR line to Leeds will loop northwards in a tunnel under the city centre.

The responses to the consultation on this draft are summarised in a MCC report of July 2018, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/25493/5_strategic_regeneration_framework_srf_for_manchester_piccadilly_–_update and included:

MCC's response to the comments stated:


Regarding the specific topic of this thread, the NIC report was strongly supportive of P15/16 - the Executive Summary stated:

The Draft SRF Update assumes that P15/16 will be completed in advance of HS2/NPR - the plan on p75 shows the platforms as part of the Classic station.

At least the moronic notion of reversing NPR services in central.Manchester seems to have been abandoned. But I hope this notion of tunnelling westward out of the NPR station before looping back to the east arises because this fits in with a sensible overall cross-Pennine route, rather than because the entire transport system of the north of England is being subordinated to the growth forecasts of Manchester Airport.

BTW why is the National (the clue's in the title) Infrastructure.Commission's contribution on platforms 15 ablnd 16 focused on its impact on a big office development in central Manchester, rather than the regional or national railway network ? We really do have some curious priorities in this country, and then wonder why only a tiny percentage of it ever receives any investment

 

[B&I]

ECTS from Ordsall Chord/Ordsall Lane/Castlefield Junction to Piccadilly would be possible to do with current rolling stock orders + the 24 ECTS 158s going off lease by 2023. Unfortunately the 158s, 397s, 802s and Mark V sets are end door units. I imagine installing the cab equipment and signalling would be expensive. Does anyone know if it would be more or less than £200m?

Treating the corridor like Thameslink but with 195s (196s for W&BBLlandudno service) and 331s could work well and allow for a limited number of long distance Northern services. If Northern ran 4tph through Ordsall Chord to Airport/Stockport etc then changing trains would be less of an issue. TPE Scotland could divert to Victoria and use the (soon to be wired) sidings and Airport passengers could change at Victoria or Preston. TPE services would have to terminate at Victoria or Piccadilly though with maybe the Newcastle service reversing across the station throat to serve the Airport. I imagine the politics would be tricky though!

Or the TPE services could serve the many places west of Manchester which could usefully be served by trains across the Pennines

 

[Greybeard33]

I'd agree all that is necessary to run even a Thameslink-type service along Castlefield, but there needs to be a way of getting long-distance trains across Manchester (and across the north more generally), without getting clogged up amidst local services

Apart from the current difficulties with the Liverpool - Norwich, which could be overcome by building P15/16, are long distance trains across Manchester (as opposed to those to Manchester/Manchester Airport) actually "clogged up amidst local services"?

All the other east - west cross-Manchester services, from the Huddersfield and Calder Valley lines, are routed via Manchester Victoria. That station has four through platforms, twice as many as Piccadilly.

 

[Chester1]

Or the TPE services could serve the many.places west of Manchester whoch could usefully be served by trains across the Pennines

What do you think the maxiumm demand on Chat Moss route will be? Its plausible to divert Hull and Middlesborough TPE services to Liverpool via Victoria which with one or two stops each would relieve some demand for Northern's Liverpool-Victoria/Warrington Bank Quay stoppers. Airport-Middlesborough service could be scrapped but not Airport-Newcastle, there would be too much political pressure. Leeds-Piccadilly would need to stay to keep the line from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge in use and provide a service straight to Piccadilly. I have argued before grade seperation at Ordsall Lane Junction to prevent conflicts between Windsor Link and Liverpool-Victoria services might be better than platforms 15 and 16. People would need to accept Victoria replacing Piccadilly and the backlash over Southport services transferring shows how difficult that could be. Its rather obvious to have East-West to run through Victoria and North-South to run from Piccadilly. TPE Airport-Newcastle could maintain an hourly service from across the Pennines to Manchester Airport and 3tph of Northern services from Victoria to the Airport would provide sufficient interchange options to get to the Airport. The pressure might have got to the point that services to the Airport could change a bit but the Greater Manchester councils ownership of the Airport limit the changes that can be made. I don't think local politics will allow for the transformation of the Castlefield corridor into a Manchester Thameslink yet.

 

[B&I]

It has been getting better but the timetable just doesn't work. The best thing to do is remove anything from the Sheffield direction going beyond Manchester Piccadilly and force a change there. Not popular I know but better than regularly running late. ManPic-Norwich, ManAir-Cleethorpes and some other express like a ManPic-Lincoln would work well.

So, remove through trains which people use every day to travel across the Pennines from west of Manchester, in favour of trains to Manchester Airport so people can use them twice year on their holidays ?

 

[B&I]

Exactly, the only alternative to that I can think of is to triple or quadruple the line from Glazebrook to Birchwood to allow the fasts to overtake the slows around there.

Not a bad option if a separate fast line wasn't going to be built. It wiuld be preferrable, though, to put all the Manchester-Liverpools onto a new fast line, and jack up.local frequencies on the CLC. Hopefully, if services were moved onto the fast line, electrification could be achieved with less bother

 

[B&I]

Apart from the current difficulties with the Liverpool - Norwich, which could be overcome by building P15/16, are long distance trains across Manchester (as opposed to those to Manchester/Manchester Airport) actually "clogged up amidst local services"?

All the other east - west cross-Manchester services, from the Huddersfield and Calder Valley lines, are routed via Manchester Victoria. That station has four through platforms, twice as many as Piccadilly.

Just because the other TPE trains travel via Victoria, doesn't make them problem-free. Victoria may have twice as maby through platforms as Piccadilly, but it has a sixth of the number of terminating platforms.

Also, your question departs from the premise that trains to Manchester, and to Manchester.
Airport, are equivalent. They aren't. To reach the airport, they must cross Manchester. Trains to the airport are therefore part of, or subject to, the same problems as other cross-Manchester trains.

(Personally, I'd like to see a dedicated line to the airport, with dedicated services, funded in both cases by Manchester Airports Group, as conclusive proof of the demand supposedly generated by the airport sround which the current north of England transport system is distorted, but that's another story.)

 

[bunnahabhain]

So, remove through trains whicb people use every day to travel.across the Pennines from west of Manchester, in favour of trains to.Manchester Airport so.people can use them twice a tear on their holidays ?

Preferably I'd keep it as it is, I know how essential it is and how many people use it across various legs. Unfortunately it always seems to take second fiddle and because the sun shines out of TPEs backside it'll end up getting split so that they can have all the golden eggs in one basket. If you were to keep a through Anglia to the North West route it would be Manchester to Norwich, Liverpool is a nice to have but causes a serious amount of delays to the whole route because everything else always seems to take precedent over the CLC route at Castlefield Junction, and the stopper is always late.

 

[Greybeard33]

Or the TPE services could serve the many places west of Manchester which could usefully be served by trains across the Pennines

I think you would find that Leeds, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Teeside and Newcastle would all strongly oppose diversion of "their" TPE Piccadilly/Airport services to any of the "many places west of Manchester". So no chance that TfN would promote this idea, whatever the merits of Southport or Chester as TPE termini.

 

[driver_m]

Why can't we just aspire to have Manchester Airport services pretty much as they are now AND excellent links across the North Of England for all our major towns and cities. It's not a binary choice. We should be able to do both. I've always been an advocate for HS2 but I must admit I'd happily drop it if it meant having the funding kept in the railway. Have the GC and Skipton - Colne reopen as a priority freight route serving Liverpool, Manchester, the NE, the SE and Scotland to take freight off the WCML and get services running across the Pennines on a 4 tracked straightened AC wired line. 4 track Wolves-Coventry for better North-non London connections, get 15/16 opened at Piccadilly, get Central or Exchange reopened in Liverpool, Leeds commuter routes reopened lime Ripon. Manchester-Sheffield vastly improved as it is shameful for a first world countries try at the moment. A few clever grade separations in, speed up going through Crewe, Carlisle and Birmingham New Street and we'd vastly improve our transport network. That's how we get the ball rolling for the North.

 

[Chester1]

I think you would find that Leeds, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Teeside and Newcastle would all strongly oppose diversion of "their" TPE Piccadilly/Airport services to any of the "many places west of Manchester". So no chance that TfN would promote this idea, whatever the merits of Southport or Chester as TPE termini.

I think it maybe politically possible to divert the Middlesborough service to Liverpool (or Piccadilly via Guide Bridge) but retain the Newcastle-Airport service. It would mean Newcastle, York and Leeds retaining 1tph to the Airport. There are plenty of choices of places east of Victoria for Northern to run alternative Ordsall Chord services from. Leeds-Bradford-Victoria-Airport would be more self contained than Airport-Middlesborough and be a small step towards the Castlefield corridor becoming like Thameslink, opperated with ECTS 195s and 331s. Burnley-Airport would be the obvious third Ordsall Chord service.

 

[B&I]

What do you think the maxiumm demand on Chat Moss route will be? Its plausible to divert Hull and Middlesborough TPE services to Liverpool via Victoria which with one or two stops each would relieve some demand for Northern's Liverpool-Victoria/Warrington Bank Quay stoppers. Airport-Middlesborough service could be scrapped but not Airport-Newcastle, there would be too much political pressure. Leeds-Piccadilly would need to stay to keep the line from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge in use and provide a service straight to Piccadilly. I have argued before grade seperation at Ordsall Lane Junction to prevent conflicts between Windsor Link and Liverpool-Victoria services might be better than platforms 15 and 16. People would need to accept Victoria replacing Piccadilly and the backlash over Southport services transferring shows how difficult that could be. Its rather obvious to have East-West to run through Victoria and North-South to run from Piccadilly. TPE Airport-Newcastle could maintain an hourly service from across the Pennines to Manchester Airport and 3tph of Northern services from Victoria to the Airport would provide sufficient interchange options to get to the Airport. The pressure might have got to the point that services to the Airport could change a bit but the Greater Manchester councils ownership of the Airport limit the changes that can be made. I don't think local politics will allow for the transformation of the Castlefield corridor into a Manchester Thameslink yet.

By destinations west of Manchester, I wasn't just thinking of Liverpool (though I think that when capacity permits 4 TPH fast Liverpool to Manchester would be justified, at peak times at least). I had Preston / Blackpool and Chester / North Wales in mind too.

You've hit the nail on the head re the conflicting demands on rail around Manchester, and the conflicting motives which confuse the picture. Until someone builds a high speed relief line, Manchester will have to make allowance for medium- and long-distance services and local rail, but its governing authorities have no interest in the former unless they go to the airport, and an apparent belief that all the later can be turned into trams regardless of speed or capacity issues.

What Greater Manchester really needs is some means of separating out longer distance trains, and a proper S bahn type system befitting a conurbation of c 3 million people (perhaps eventually with cross-city tunnels and re-conversion of the Altrincham, Bury and Oldham Metrolink lines to high capacity heavyish rail EMU operation, and new street-running lines to take over any redundant infrastructure). Sadly, the latter is already being fatally compromised by airportcentricity, and the latter doesn't even seem to be on TfGM's radar

 

[B&I]

Preferably I'd keep it as it is, I know how essential it is and how many people use it across various legs. Unfortunately it always seems to take second fiddle and because the sun shines out of TPEs backside it'll end up getting split so that they can have all the golden eggs in one basket. If you were to keep a through Anglia to the North West route it would be Manchester to Norwich, Liverpool is a nice to have but causes a serious amount of delays to the whole route because everything else always seems to take precedent over the CLC route at Castlefield Junction, and the stopper is always late.

So, Liverpool, already the second-worst connected large city in Britain, loses one of its few remaining long-distance services because no-one can sort humerus from buttocks when it comes to getting trains through central Manchester. That seems sensible, and fair

 

[driver_m]

Preferably I'd keep it as it is, I know how essential it is and how many people use it across various legs. Unfortunately it always seems to take second fiddle and because the sun shines out of TPEs backside it'll end up getting split so that they can have all the golden eggs in one basket. If you were to keep a through Anglia to the North West route it would be Manchester to Norwich, Liverpool is a nice to have but causes a serious amount of delays to the whole route because everything else always seems to take precedent over the CLC route at Castlefield Junction, and the stopper is always late.

It's not a nice to have, it's an essential requirement. Warrington isn't exactly small either and sorely underutilised with very poor parking there amd lack of platform capacity. Needs dynamic loops on the CLC. Whether they need to go to Lime St though is a different matter. A redone Central could be better. I know it's really getting the crayons out, but I'd like to see the tunnels under Liverpool widened to get more types of stock through. Again, it shouldn't be limited to just a metro network. London gets its connections and it should be no different for our other major cities.

 

[B&I]

I think you would find that Leeds, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Teeside and Newcastle would all strongly oppose diversion of "their" TPE Piccadilly/Airport services to any of the "many places west of Manchester". So no chance that TfN would promote this idea, whatever the merits of Southport or Chester as TPE termini.

TfGM will never support it because its constituent authorities have a financial interest in promoting Manchester Airport. In other news, portaloo sales to the ursine community remain low, whole the Pope has yet to become a member of the Elim Pentecostal church.

Perhaps we should be making major transport decisions on the basis of major everyday passenger flows between our major cities, rather than on journeys most people make a handful.of times per year, and / or providing an indirect competitive advantage to one north of England airport over the others

 

[Killingworth]

So, Liverpool, already the second-worst connected large city in Britain, loses one of its few remaining long-distance services because no-one can sort humerus from buttocks when it comes to getting trains through central Manchester. That seems sensible, and fair

It's not. That's what this thread's all about because all these TOCs, local authorities and planning authorities are now trying to run a range of rail services that were envisaged to use a series of improvements that are well behind schedule, yet to get spades in the ground or totally lost in the labyrinth of politically sensitive offices a lot further south.

We in Sheffield were led to believe we'd be better connected with Liverpool and the North West, not worse.

Northern Powerhouse means Northern Powerhouse. That well defined project so easily announced yet proving so difficult to implement anywhere near timetable or budget.

Maybe we need to be promoting CrossMan as the name for this part of the project? It better defines what's needed than platforms 15 and 16 - and sums up how many feel!

 

[B&I]

It's not. That's what this thread's all about because all these TOCs, local authorities and planning authorities are now trying to run a range of rail services that were envisaged to use a series of improvements that are well behind schedule, yet to get spades in the ground or totally lost in the labyrinth of politically sensitive offices a lot further south.

We in Sheffield were led to believe we'd be better connected with Liverpool and the North West, not worse.

Northern Powerhouse means Northern Powerhouse. That well defined project so easily announced yet proving so difficult to implement anywhere near timetable or budget.

Maybe we need to be promoting CrossMan as the name for this part of the project? It better defines what's needed than platforms 15 and 16 - and sums up how many feel!

I've no problem with money being spent on Manchester. If long-distance services pass through it, money spent there will improve them. It needs a much better local railway network than it has. But money has to be spent in a lot if other places too if we are to have a functioning network (eg in your part of the world, on the Hope Valley, on the southern approaches to Sheffield station, and from there to Meadowhall)

 

[Chester1]

By destinations west of Manchester, I wasn't just thinking of Liverpool (though I think that when capacity permits 4 TPH fast Liverpool to Manchester would be justified, at peak times at least). I had Preston / Blackpool and Chester / North Wales in mind too.

You've hit the nail on the head re the conflicting demands on rail around Manchester, and the conflicting motives which confuse the picture. Until someone builds a high speed relief line, Manchester will have to make allowance for medium- and long-distance services and local rail, but its governing authorities have no interest in the former unless they go to the airport, and an apparent belief that all the later can be turned into trams regardless of speed or capacity issues.

What Greater Manchester really needs is some means of separating out longer distance trains, and a proper S bahn type system befitting a conurbation of c 3 million people (perhaps eventually with cross-city tunnels and re-conversion of the Altrincham, Bury and Oldham Metrolink lines to high capacity heavyish rail EMU operation, and new street-running lines to take over any redundant infrastructure). Sadly, the latter is already being fatally compromised by airportcentricity, and the latter doesn't even seem to be on TfGM's radar

A more realistic (i.e. cheaper) version of that would be grade seperating Ordsall Lane to make Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds the east-western main line for the north. More 4 tracking would help with that too.

A suggested service pattern for Piccadilly 13 and 14 using only 319s, 769s, 195s, 196s and 331s. With a new order it could eventually be run only with ETCS 195/196s and 331s and at higher frequencies:

Airport-Liverpool via CLC (express)
Airport-Blackpool
Airport-Preston
Airport-Llandudno (196s)
Airport-Leeds via Calder Valley
Airport-Burnley
Airport-Stalybridge (when wired)
Crewe-Manchester Airport-Liverpool

(In addition Airport-Sheffield and Airport-Newcastle by reversing across Piccadilly station throat, providing 10tph Piccadilly-Airport).

Sheffield-Liverpool (Northen Connect via CLC)
Alderley Edge-Wigan (769s then 331s once wired)
Hazel Grove-Preston
Hazel Grove-Stalybridge via Ordsall Chord (once wired)

CLC stoppers continuing to terminate at Oxford Road. TPE Airport-Scotland services diverting to Victoria (using electrified siding between services). TPE switching Middlesborough and Hull services to Liverpool. Obviously there will be problems with this but you get the gist. 12tph at Piccadilly 13 and 14 but run entirely with units with doors at thirds would be a significant improvement on current situation, especially if ETCS was installed.

 

[Confused52]

It's not a nice to have, it's an essential requirement. Warrington isn't exactly small either and sorely underutilised with very poor parking there amd lack of platform capacity. Needs dynamic loops on the CLC. Whether they need to go to Lime St though is a different matter. A redone Central could be better. I know it's really getting the crayons out, but I'd like to see the tunnels under Liverpool widened to get more types of stock through. Again, it shouldn't be limited to just a metro network. London gets its connections and it should be no different for our other major cities.

It seems the forum is ignoring the extra demand that will come from Warrington West which under construction complete with a large car park that is more convenient than Warrington Central for those west of the A49. The area around the station is in the Travel to Work Area (according to ONS) for Manchester not Liverpool and the station is intended to serve the are at Omega Business Park which will be pretty huge. The idea of turn-back at Central for the Manchester services and ignoring Warrington in favour of Liverpool-Manchester direct is not realistic.