Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[Topological]

A £17Bn scheme that will eat up all of Liverpool and Manchester's transport funding for decades and, let's be honest, most of it is intended to benefit Manchester in its bid to build HS2 by stealth. Liverpool to Manchester Airport is the cheapest bit, mostly using existing and disused railways.

It will be a high speed line, but only Manchester Airport passengers will benefit from shorter journey times. Liverpool to Manchester journey times will be no better than the current fastest times, with the added problem of landing many passengers further away from their final destination than currently with Victoria and Oxford Road. Therefore door to door journey times will be significantly slower for many people. They won't want these high speed trains to be running half empty, so services on the CLC and Chat Moss lines will be slowed or cut back to force people onto these new trains.

I'm all for finishing HS2, but the opportunity cost of doing it this way means there will be no funding for expanding Merseyrail or electrifying the CLC route. (Manchester will also miss out on other rail improvements, but that is for them to decide if this is worth it.)

Finally, there will be a significant cost to Liverpool Airport. Without its own rail link, journey times from Liverpool to John Lennon Airport will actually be slower than the high speed line from Liverpool to Manchester Airport. This will harm the airport's viability and jeopardise the jobs in the Liverpool City Region that depend on the airport. As previously stated, there will be no money to fix this as it will all have gone on the NPR line.

I do not think there is anything stealth about it.

The question for peripheries are always whether to blunder on trying to have their own identity or to accept that global geographies have changed. The UK geography emerged when travel was much slower. If we were designing the country from scratch the emerging geography would not be what we have now.

John Lennon could continue as Luton/Stansted to Manchester's Heathrow, or it could keep deluding itself that the long-hauls will switch. If the industrial revolution taught anything then it should be that specialisation has more benefit than trying to compete on exactly the same ground.

Thankfully the leaders of the respective cities understand the benefits of working together.

Hence the plan means more capacity between the cities without losing time and, crucially, Liverpool has a better connection globally.

(Note Manchester does not need the line to have global connectivity, hence this line is only about Liverpool)

 

[stephen rp]

£17bn for a high speed line between Manchester and Liverpool, one of the benefits of which is enhancing the global connectivity of Liverpool.

Maybe Manchester should pull up the drawbridge and keep its connectivity to itself since obviously Liverpool is happy with what they get with John Lennon?

I thought NPR was about connecting the North, not getting the world to Liverpool.

 

[Topological]

I thought NPR was about connecting the North, not getting the world to Liverpool.

NPR yes, but this thread is about a high speed connection between Liverpool and Manchester.

For the broader NPR network there is a natural centrality to Manchester, the same centrality that makes Manchester the fastest developing city of the set NPR serves.

 

[stephen rp]

A £17Bn scheme that will eat up all of Liverpool and Manchester's transport funding for decades and, let's be honest, most of it is intended to benefit Manchester in its bid to build HS2 by stealth. Liverpool to Manchester Airport is the cheapest bit, mostly using existing and disused railways.

Cheapest because slowest. Still needs to cross the Ship Canal, get under the M6, and (if using the HS2 route) cross the M56 twice.

It will be a high speed line, but only Manchester Airport passengers will benefit from shorter journey times. Liverpool to Manchester journey times will be no better than the current fastest times, with the added problem of landing many passengers further away from their final destination than currently with Victoria and Oxford Road. Therefore door to door journey times will be significantly slower for many people. They won't want these high speed trains to be running half empty, so services on the CLC and Chat Moss lines will be slowed or cut back to force people onto these new trains.

I'm all for finishing HS2, but the opportunity cost of doing it this way means there will be no funding for expanding Merseyrail or electrifying the CLC route. (Manchester will also miss out on other rail improvements, but that is for them to decide if this is worth it.)

Once the DfT is released from the Tory "Network North" promises, and the OBR and others get to work on the scant business case and "opportunity costs", I suspect there may be some reality checks.

Finally, there will be a significant cost to Liverpool Airport. Without its own rail link, journey times from Liverpool to John Lennon Airport will actually be slower than the high speed line from Liverpool to Manchester Airport. This will harm the airport's viability and jeopardise the jobs in the Liverpool City Region that depend on the airport. As previously stated, there will be no money to fix this as it will all have gone on the NPR line.

Actually, by the time you've left the (unfunded) Manchester Airport station, got on an (unfunded) sky train / maglev / tram extension and got to the right terminal, a non-stop bus from Lime St to Liverpool airport right outside the terminal would be a lot quicker. The short-lived Excel coach connecting the cities via the airports couldn't pay its way, but £17bn would subsidise a lot of such services.

 

[8A Rail]

If a new line's to be built simply as some sort of regional-express route with stops every dozen miles or so (and presumably with a miserably slow alignment through Warrington) rather than as a genuinely fast inter-city route, then does it need to be built to high-speed standards at all? Wouldn't a perfectly conventional 90-mph line do quite well?

Or get the fast service by doing what the LNER did with the York-Scarborough line in the thirties — just close all the intermediate stations on the Chat Moss line, spend a fraction of all those billions on minor improvements through Edge Hill and on the Manchester approaches, and make to with that. (And forget all about the fact that Manchester and Liverpool once had three genuinely fast (by the standards of the day) services competing to connect them, not stopping off at Warrington or Newton-le-Willows or Wigan en route.)

Me thinks your latter comment is tongue in cheek somehow! However, what do the people who live on and near the line if they wish to travel by train to either Liverpool or Manchester (or other locations along the line), if there are no trains stopping along the way? Ah yes, yet more road congestion and chaos! I've got a grand idea too, may be close York Station and build a by pass line to avoid it too!

 

[GJMarshy]

What I think needs answering are these key questions in the article posted earlier:

1. Is it intended to facilitate future HS2 services into Manchester if a future government reinstates the project’s northern legs?
2. Is it meant to significantly reduce pressure on the Castlefield Corridor, which plagues the North’s rail network?
3. Will it substantially cut journey times between Liverpool and Manchester city centres and beyond?

If the answer isn't "yes" to all of these questions, it's not really solving any major issues apart from perhaps increasing Liverpool-Airport/North Cheshire connectivity. You'd hope leaders can answer "yes" to all of those, but right now all the statements made so far seem to focus on airport connectivity and just general "the north is finally seeing investment" sentiment.

I don't doubt serious thought is being put into this route, but it does seem to be muddled far too much with political box-ticking and vested interests in MAG in my option. I may well be wrong, and maybe it'll achieve all the above somehow, however what's been released doesn't suggest that. That's why getting clarity is so important.

 

[javelin]

This thing strikes me as expensive/overengineered for what it is and does very little to solve the issues with the wider rail network. Moving a handful of the North's fast services over to this line is a really small benefit for ~£17 Bn of investment.

 

[MarkyT]

This thing strikes me as expensive/overengineered for what it is and does very little to solve the issues with the wider rail network. Moving a handful of the North's fast services over to this line is a really small benefit for ~£17 Bn of investment.

Moving the higher speed trains away from other lines should make much more capacity available on them for local stopping trains. Without this, existing mixed traffic, largely double track railways between Liverpool and Manchester max out at around half hourly fast and stopper frequency, alternating. You can't go higher frequency as the fasts catch up the stopper in front. You can 'flight' trains, that is run a platoon of closely spaced trains of one service tier, then switch to running multiple trains of another tier but that can make the service far less attractive. Three trains in ten minutes then nothing for 20 is far less convenient than one every 10 minutes. Also, each tier in the mixed traffic configuration is highly dependent on the performance of the other tiers. Any delay on the locals usually very quickly impacts on expresses. Having separate fast and slow lines means the theoretical capacity for both can be dramatically increased as well as overall system reliability. Double the tracks, segregate by speed, and sextuple capacity at least (with the caveat you have to accommodate the traffic in any areas the services run through to beyond the system in question). It hardly matters which route the new trains take, whether some bits are new or reused. The important thing is that an independent dedicated pair is created throughout for the expresses, leaving the local lines for local trains and people. The express lines can also be used by other limited stop express services like XC to avoid local traffic where that is useful and appropriate.

 

[daodao]

Moving the higher speed trains away from other lines should make much more capacity available on them for local stopping trains. Without this, existing mixed traffic, largely double track railways between Liverpool and Manchester max out at around half hourly fast and stopper frequency, alternating. You can't go higher frequency as the fasts catch up the stopper in front. You can 'flight' trains, that is run a platoon of closely spaced trains of one service tier, then switch to running multiple trains of another tier but that can make the service far less attractive. Three trains in ten minutes then nothing for 20 is far less convenient than one every 10 minutes. Also, each tier in the mixed traffic configuration is highly dependent on the performance of the other tiers. Any delay on the locals usually very quickly impacts on expresses. Having separate fast and slow lines means the theoretical capacity for both can be dramatically increased as well as overall system reliability. Double the tracks, segregate by speed, and sextuple capacity at least (with the caveat you have to accommodate the traffic in any areas the services run through to beyond the system in question). It hardly matters which route the new trains take, whether some bits are new or reused. The important thing is that an independent dedicated pair is created throughout for the expresses, leaving the local lines for local trains and people. The express lines can also be used by other limited stop express services like XC to avoid local traffic where that is useful and appropriate.

All sounds reasonable in theory, but is there actually any need for increased capacity? At present, the 2 remaining lines between Liverpool and Manchester only carry 5 through tph between the 2 cities: 2 semi-fast and 1 stopper on the ex-CLC line, 1 fast and 1 stopper on the Chat Moss route. What is more, service frequencies have been cut back, even post Covid, compared to what they were in 2019. That does not suggest that the demand exists for an increased service frequency to justify the very expensive construction of a separate fast line between the 2 cities for express trains, which is the premise of this thread.

 

[8A Rail]

All sounds reasonable in theory, but is there actually any need for increased capacity? At present, the 2 remaining lines between Liverpool and Manchester only carry 5 through tph between the 2 cities: 2 semi-fast and 1 stopper on the ex-CLC line, 1 fast and 1 stopper on the Chat Moss route. What is more, service frequencies have been cut back, even post Covid, compared to what they were in 2019. That does not suggest that the demand exists for an increased service frequency to justify the very expensive construction of a separate fast line between the 2 cities for express trains, which is the premise of this thread.

The demand IS there for extra trains especially 'stoppers' on both lines but they are not being provided for various reasons. The problems stems from being an hourly service that people who used the train in the past (pre covid) which was half hourly have now been driven away (literally) because it is every hour and a lot of those trains are well patronised already. People have chosen to find alternative ways of travel in consequence. Bring back the half hour service, then they will return (with park and ride car parks being well used once again). Again, as some one who lives on the L&M line and likes to use the trains, is what I want as an individual not some sort of HS link between the two cities which will not serve the majority of people who reside in between the two city centres! The politicians need to come back to the real world and do the simple things in life.

 

[The Planner]

All sounds reasonable in theory, but is there actually any need for increased capacity? At present, the 2 remaining lines between Liverpool and Manchester only carry 5 through tph between the 2 cities: 2 semi-fast and 1 stopper on the ex-CLC line, 1 fast and 1 stopper on the Chat Moss route. What is more, service frequencies have been cut back, even post Covid, compared to what they were in 2019. That does not suggest that the demand exists for an increased service frequency to justify the very expensive construction of a separate fast line between the 2 cities for express trains, which is the premise of this thread.

What about medium to long term? You are looking at the status quo.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would it be possible to upgrade Ditton Junction to Latchford and compulsory purchase the trackbed to Skelton Junction?

If this was feasible, how would the railway bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal be replaced?

 

[daodao]

What about medium to long term? You are looking at the status quo.

I have considered the longer term. There is little evidence to support an increasing demand for city centre to city centre travel between Liverpool and Manchester. There hasn't been any increase in the number of fast trains on this route since 1910 and there isn't likely to be a need for more than 4 fast tph between these 2 cities (2 tph by each route) for the foreseeable future, for which there is enough existing capacity.

 

[stephen rp]

Would it be possible to upgrade Ditton Junction to Latchford and compulsory purchase the trackbed to Skelton Junction?

If this was feasible, how would the railway bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal be replaced?

See above. The old route through Lymm can't be used and Skelton Jn is nowhere near the airport. The second Thelwall M6 viaduct didn't leave a hole in the embankment for what by then was the Transpennine Trail.

That means going over the Canal then finding a new route south to link up with the HS2 route to the airport near Millington. Under the M6 (maybe via an existing road bridge) then crossing the M56 twice.

Ditton Jn to Latchford will have to be upgraded - and umpteen level crossings dealt with - and I've seen nothing to explain how to smooth the curves west of Bank Quay without building bridges over the Mersey (or a new cut for the river).

£17bn will not be enough, even without Burnham's underground station and all the other whistles and bells including an airport station and transport from the station over the M56 to the airport terminals.

 

[The Planner]

I have considered the longer term. There is little evidence to support an increasing demand for city centre to city centre travel between Liverpool and Manchester. There hasn't been any increase in the number of fast trains on this route since 1910 and there isn't likely to be a need for more than 4 fast tph between these 2 cities (2 tph by each route) for the foreseeable future, for which there is enough existing capacity.

So you can confidently say that there will be/is no surpressed demand considering there is very limited scope to increase capacity on the existing infrastructure?

 

[Greybeard33]

All sounds reasonable in theory, but is there actually any need for increased capacity? At present, the 2 remaining lines between Liverpool and Manchester only carry 5 through tph between the 2 cities: 2 semi-fast and 1 stopper on the ex-CLC line, 1 fast and 1 stopper on the Chat Moss route. What is more, service frequencies have been cut back, even post Covid, compared to what they were in 2019. That does not suggest that the demand exists for an increased service frequency to justify the very expensive construction of a separate fast line between the 2 cities for express trains, which is the premise of this thread.

The second TPE fast on the Chat Moss line is being restored in December. From June Northern is replacing the 3-car 323s and 331/0s on the Chat Moss stopper by 4-car 331/1s. The MTF is planning capacity enhancements at Oxford Road station that will enable the second CLC stopper to operate all day rather than just in the peaks.

None of this suggests static demand between Liverpool and Manchester.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's my suggestion on what NPR might build through Warrington. Blue is new, orange is old alignment reinstated (also completely rebuilt). Once parallel with M56 at Deansgreen, that road is followed all the way to Manchester Airport. West of Warrington new alignment on surface and elevated as necessary. East of Grappenhall mostly surface, possibly some tunnel.



Some detail around the station. NPR track and platforms on viaduct over south end of WCML station. Optional chords added with extra platfrom group in freight yard for Chester and N Wales services to access new line. Yellow is new main concourse building with link bridge over to Chester platforms:

 

[GJMarshy]

Here's my suggestion on what NPR might build through Warrington. Blue is new, orange is old alignment reinstated (also completely rebuilt). Once parallel with M56 at Deansgreen, that road is followed all the way to Manchester Airport. West of Warrington new alignment on surface and elevated as necessary. East of Grappenhall mostly surface, possibly some tunnel.

View attachment 159064

Some detail around the station. NPR track and platforms on viaduct over south end of WCML station. Optional chords added with extra platfrom group in freight yard for Chester and N Wales services to access new line. Yellow is new main concourse building with link bridge over to Chester platforms:

View attachment 159066

This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to happen if the existing plan goes ahead. Good job putting this illustration together!

A connection toward Chester/North Wales *has to be* included for it to actually start to resolve the Castlefield bottleneck, which surely should be the primary purpose of the line.

It does seem over-engineered to me (not your plan, but the LAMA plan in general) Makes some sense if HS2 was confirmed to be utilising it, and that the line from Warrington to Liverpool was entirely 225kph spec, however what’s been put forward seems like a bodge job.

The timescales for this are also too distant to have any effect on people’s daily lives. We’d be looking at the mid-late 2040s to see any improvement in east-west capacity from Liverpool through Manchester. There’s no other plans to sort out Castlefield, so any solution has to sort that out at a minimum (especially with this kind of money)

Personally I’m not sure the board should be risking wasting time developing a solution that might end up being relatively pointless unless Labour suddenly double-down and actually commit to HS2 Phases 2a and 2b west.

In fact I’d argue the best solution is to retain provision for both those HS2 phases. (Keep land safeguarded which Labour could absolutely do) And start severing a more incremental, more geographically-targeted approach to NPR. Capacity relief through Manchester is the name of the game. Northern Hub was promised over a decade ago and all Rembrandt apart from the Chord (which only sees 1tph) have now been cancelled with no chance of resurrection due to development and huge associated disruption of closing Castlefield for years.

A new line is definitely needed, but it should probably be incremental. Best to start with a simple Castlefield relief tunnel for the fast services. Ordsall to Ardwick. Get things moving reliably and release the existing surface network for much needed, frequent commuter services, then look at adding a new line to Liverpool, and eventually toward Leeds. (Although TRU should suffice for a good while)

In terms of airport connectivity. It’s 15-20mins from Piccadilly depending on calling patterns via the existing line, which could run at 5min frequencies (12tph) with the fast services removed from Castlefield. So direct services to the airport are a bit of a red herring.

Even without a new Liv-Mcr line, with that relief tunnel you’d do Lime st - Piccadilly in 33mins, and then a short hop to the airport. That’s more than adequate.

Heck I’m falling into the trap again here. Airport connectivity shouldn’t be driving this thing!

 

[stephen rp]

Here's my suggestion on what NPR might build through Warrington. Blue is new, orange is old alignment reinstated (also completely rebuilt). Once parallel with M56 at Deansgreen, that road is followed all the way to Manchester Airport. West of Warrington new alignment on surface and elevated as necessary. East of Grappenhall mostly surface, possibly some tunnel.

View attachment 159064

Some detail around the station. NPR track and platforms on viaduct over south end of WCML station. Optional chords added with extra platfrom group in freight yard for Chester and N Wales services to access new line. Yellow is new main concourse building with link bridge over to Chester platforms:

View attachment 159066

So that's effectively three separate stations at Bank Quay, crossing the A556 and sliproads over the M56 at junction 7, completely new alignment Warrington to Ditton with three new bridges over the tidal Mersey (one ostensibly navigable and needing 60 foot air draught), through two landfill sites and a new housing estate.

 

[8A Rail]

The second TPE fast on the Chat Moss line is being restored in December. From June Northern is replacing the 3-car 323s and 331/0s on the Chat Moss stopper by 4-car 331/1s. The MTF is planning capacity enhancements at Oxford Road station that will enable the second CLC stopper to operate all day rather than just in the peaks.

None of this suggests static demand between Liverpool and Manchester.

Four car Class 331/1 although nice to have and an extra coach but it is still an one hour frequency which ever way you look at it. Passenger capacity is there for two 'stoppers' per hour on the L&M line but until they (Northern or who ever) one day introduce it then many people will still stay away from using the train. To me and many people, that is what they want not fast / semi fast train serving Liverpool / Warrington / Manchester and nothing in between, and as you stated two TPE fast per hour from December will cater for that anyway with Newton le Willows being in between, for mid way pick up / drop off (yes, wont forget Lea Green either).

 

[CdBrux]

Here's my suggestion on what NPR might build through Warrington. Blue is new, orange is old alignment reinstated (also completely rebuilt). Once parallel with M56 at Deansgreen, that road is followed all the way to Manchester Airport. West of Warrington new alignment on surface and elevated as necessary. East of Grappenhall mostly surface, possibly some tunnel.

View attachment 159064

out of interest why don't you follow the existing line to the west of Warrington? I realise immediately out of the low level station is a bit windy, but of all services stopped there how much of a penalty would that be?

 

[GJMarshy]

Assuming the next government double down on NPR in full, aka "TfN's Preferred Network" in which the entire line is new, built for 200kph+, could something like this work to connect into Chester/North Wales? It'd involve putting the HSR WBQ station in an open box, but does allow for a more stratified layout, and for select trains from Liverpool to Manchester to skip Warrington to meet the 25min journey time spec?

I.e you'd have 2 platforms at Warrington with 2 passing tracks. All Chester/NW services would call at Warrington, whilst 2 out of the 4-6 services from Liverpool would pass through.

 

[stephen rp]

Assuming the next government double down on NPR in full, aka "TfN's Preferred Network" in which the entire line is new, built for 200kph+, could something like this work to connect into Chester/North Wales? It'd involve putting the HSR WBQ station in an open box, but does allow for a more stratified layout, and for select trains from Liverpool to Manchester to skip Warrington to meet the 25min journey time spec?

I.e you'd have 2 platforms at Warrington with 2 passing tracks. All Chester/NW services would call at Warrington, whilst 2 out of the 4-6 services from Liverpool would pass through.

View attachment 159097

So that's a tunnel under Warrington (but not under the Ship Canal so now needs two bridges over the MSC - one through Moore Nature Reserve), CPOs on most of the property in Moore village, all to connect to Chester & N Wales (which loses most of the point of an interchange station at Bank Quay - a tunnel with a station under the town centre with links to Central and Bank Quay was a rejected idea). The pic conveniently just misses the crossing over the M62 or a route from there to Liverpool (built up areas, crossing the M57, etc etc). Mind you, how NPR got through the Liverpool suburbs was always a mystery.

 

[MarkyT]

out of interest why don't you follow the existing line to the west of Warrington? I realise immediately out of the low level station is a bit windy, but of all services stopped there how much of a penalty would that be?

The tightest curve seems to be about 250m radius, corresponding to a theoretical speed limit of around 40mph with cant. The line is signed for 20mph in both directions today for a mile and a half west from Arpley Jn, then changes to 30/40 to Ditton; no point in maintaining it for higher speeds with the route's freight-only status. More concerning is the 4m elevation over sea level next to tidal water. Also the many level crossings, and I think electrification clearances under the WCML - I recall as a child the first time I saw the low level under the station with a freight passing through, I remarked to Dad how tight the clearance seemed. Lowering tracks further under Bank Quay is likely undesirable, and the alternative of raising WCML tracks probably entails a complete station rebuild at that level. Space for platforms of sufficient, length, width and straightness on the low level could be a challenge; there are nasty reverse curves under the bridge and in the former platfrom area. I showed gently curved NPR extra high-level platforms, which are manageable within stepping distance norms, especially if trains have moving gap filler steps (HS2 stock is planned to have them). WCML track level is only 9m above sea level through Bank Quay so even adding a generous 10m for the extra high level would still result in a new track level of under 20m over sea level.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What a pity that the CLC Warrington by-pass line was abandoned and then built over (the Widnes Central loop was also abandoned).
Remember also the fully-designed Culcheth-Millington HS2 alignment complete with MSC/Mersey viaduct, could be useable from the Newton-le-Willows direction or from around Risley on the CLC.
Not to mention the Glazebrook-Skelton Jn alignment, still intact I think, but missing the MSC/Mersey bridge.

 

[Nottingham59]

Here's my suggestion on what NPR might build through Warrington.

I do like the idea of putting the new WBQ platforms on a viaduct going over the WCML lines, rather than trying to fit them in to the existing low-level route.

This is how I would run a 2km twin-track viaduct (Orange) with 265m platforms at WBQ (blue).


The tightest curve has a radius of 450m, which is fine within 1000m of a station where all trains will stop. The curve could be made straighter with minimal residential demolition.

Gradients would need to be 1.5%, which is fine for a non-freight line, or the viaducts could start further back if less steep approaches were necessary.

 

[GJMarshy]

I do like the idea of putting the new WBQ platforms on a viaduct going over the WCML lines, rather than trying to fit them in to the existing low-level route.

This is how I would run a 2km twin-track viaduct (Orange) with 265m platforms at WBQ (blue).

View attachment 159155
The tightest curve has a radius of 450m, which is fine within 1000m of a station where all trains will stop. The curve could be made straighter with minimal residential demolition.

Gradients would need to be 1.5%, which is fine for a non-freight line, or the viaducts could start further back if less steep approaches were necessary.

Some very good points raised about the height differentials by yourself and @MarkyT making a flyover perhaps the best option. If we want the line to be entirely HSR (200-230kph), and for select trains to pass through to get fast Liv-Mcr timings, perhaps a combination of these proposals (with a link to Chester/North Wales) might be optimum? I've drawn it out with 1800m curves suitable for High Speed, and also a radius wide enough not to present accessibility issues for platforms (which would be on the curve)

Presumably you'd grade-separate the junction toward Chester somehow too (not shown here)




It does put a bit of a "kink" in the line, but given it'd ensure the entire route was 200kph+, it'd allow for much better Liverpool to Manchester journey times, enticing people who might otherwise use a stopper service toward Mcr onto the new line:



This of course is assuming the job is done properly and it's all HSR. If journey times are no better than present (people will just use stopper services that are more convenient to where they live) and the HS2/Chester/North Wales links are missing, then this line really won't have much utility. Let's hope that if leaders insist on ruling via the previous HS2 route, more money is ploughed in & HS2 provision re-instated following the general election. Otherwise, back to the drawing board we go. Something more incremental probably if it's capacity we're trying to fix. Something like "CrossNorth" or "HighSpeedNorth-Revisited" - Greengage 21. Hopefully leaders can give some more clarity on this "LAMA Line"

 

[MarkyT]

I do like the idea of putting the new WBQ platforms on a viaduct going over the WCML lines, rather than trying to fit them in to the existing low-level route.

This is how I would run a 2km twin-track viaduct (Orange) with 265m platforms at WBQ (blue).

The tightest curve has a radius of 450m, which is fine within 1000m of a station where all trains will stop. The curve could be made straighter with minimal residential demolition.

Gradients would need to be 1.5%, which is fine for a non-freight line, or the viaducts could start further back if less steep approaches were necessary.

Another good option. 1.5% should be fine for modern high-performance passenger units. We've still to deal with the level crossings to the west, which a new route further south would avoid. Your shorter, straighter station might also tie into a more southerly new route like mine, via a reasonable radius curve (purple) that avoids the transporter bridge. I note your design could have longer straight platforms if desired (blue dashed), which would push the eastern ramp further out:

 

[stephen rp]

So that's a station demolishing the new £20m road link from Bank Quay to the Chester Road, rebuilding the road bridge taking the main roads from the south into Warrington town centre to get over the new alignment with its new railway bridge over the Mersey (plus three other new river bridges), and a new railway across where the £200m Western Link road is supposed to go.

 

[Nottingham59]

So that's a station demolishing the new £20m road link from Bank Quay to the Chester Road,

Yes. I assume it would be cheaper to lower the link road (A49 Widmerpool Queensway), rather than raise the railway viaduct at that point

and a new railway across where the £200m Western Link road is supposed to go.

The Western Link road bridges the Ditton Goods Line. This image shows the intended design of the northbound carriageway bridge. It allows 5.8m above rail level and a 12.8m clear span.


Unfortunately, the location of the new bridges will constrain the route of the Ditton Line around the Sankey Bridges, as shown here , which will limit the future speed of the line.