Timperley/Glazebrook chords

[Philip]

Looking in the thread about the plans for Northern beyond December, I read about the problems the Mid-Cheshire service faces between Manchester and Stockport, having to cross the lines from platform 1 at Stockport in order to get across to the Northenden line and the potential bottleneck this creates.

It made me think about Skelton Junction and the line from there to Glazebrook. Would it be feasible to reopen this line and divert Mid-Cheshire services along there, then into Manchester Oxford Road via Irlam? The Cadishead line didn't close that long ago and as far as I'm aware is largely still intact. Would it reduce journey times between Chester and Altrincham and Manchester, compared to going the long way round via Stockport?

 

[RayE]

Even if the track from Skelton Jct to Glazebrook East Jct was useable, which it isn't and the canal bridge base was strong enough, which it isn't, full of holes where it's rusted away it couldn't be done. No connection at Skelton Jct without reversing and no connection to the Irlam and Manchester line at Glazebrook East Jct without reversing. Just to say I started my spotting at Glazebrook East Jct back in cough cough 1958, 7yrs old

 

[Philip]

Even if the track from Skelton Jct to Glazebrook East Jct was useable, which it isn't and the canal bridge base was strong enough, which it isn't, full of holes where it's rusted away it couldn't be done. No connection at Skelton Jct without reversing and no connection to the Irlam and Manchester line at Glazebrook East Jct without reversing. Just to say I started my spotting at Glazebrook East Jct back in cough cough 1958, 7yrs old

Aye, but that's why I mentioned a possible chord being built for each junction. Is there space for a south chord at Skelton Junction? I know the Cadishead line is unuseable and some structures need repairs, but it's not totally lost is it? Has any of it been built over?

 

[RayE]

None of the line as been built over, their were plans a few years ago to have a rail freight depot at Partington but nothing came of it, worse luck. Don't think they could put a chord near Skelton Jct, built up area. The cost would be horrendous to reinstate this line, don't think it would be worth it. Would love to see trains using this line again though.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A much more useful project would be to divert the Mid-Cheshire line into a tunnel and then across to the Airport station. This isn't idle fantasy, but a real suggestion by the various bodies involved in planning rail transport at Manchester Airport. The plans went up in the air a bit with HS2 but conceptually there's no reason why it couldn't also be built. In that scenario, Metrolink would take over Altrincham, Hale and Ashley stations and the Altrincham-Stockport link would be provided by tram-trains instead.

One use I can think of for the Cadishead line would be as one of the western parts of a Greater Manchester orbital Metrolink line. This has also been mooted by reasonably important people and it seems eminently feasible due to the various underused, disused or heritage railway alignments between the outer towns.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

One use I can think of for the Cadishead line would be as one of the western parts of a Greater Manchester orbital Metrolink line. This has also been mooted by reasonably important people and it seems eminently feasible due to the various underused, disused or heritage railway alignments between the outer towns.

It also figures in some of the "HS3" planning as part of a new trans-pennine route via Manchester Airport.

 

[Ianno87]

Aye, but that's why I mentioned a possible chord being built for each junction. Is there space for a south chord at Skelton Junction? I know the Cadishead line is unuseable and some structures need repairs, but it's not totally lost is it? Has any of it been built over?

A south chord at Skelton Jn (connecting into the NR line on the east side of Navigation Rd) only looks like it could be done with a hefty chunk of residential demolition to the east side of the corridor.

 

[snowball]

Aye, but that's why I mentioned a possible chord being built for each junction.

Actually you didn't.

Is there space for a south chord at Skelton Junction?

There are industrial buildings in the way and there seems to be new housing possibly in the way. There's also housing in the way of your chord at Irlam.

You'd also be putting more trains through Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road. Where would you terminate them?

 

[snowball]

A much more useful project would be to divert the Mid-Cheshire line into a tunnel and then across to the Airport station. This isn't idle fantasy, but a real suggestion by the various bodies involved in planning rail transport at Manchester Airport. The plans went up in the air a bit with HS2 but conceptually there's no reason why it couldn't also be built. In that scenario, Metrolink would take over Altrincham, Hale and Ashley stations and the Altrincham-Stockport link would be provided by tram-trains instead.

The airport tried to drop this proposal from the latest version of its ground transport plan but the Mid-Cheshire line user group succeeded in preventing it being dropped.

 

[Ianno87]

Actually you didn't.

There are industrial buildings in the way and there seems to be new housing possibly in the way. There's also housing in the way of your chord at Irlam.

You'd also be putting more trains through Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road. Where would you terminate them?

Yes, that was part of the point of Metrolink in the first place - take trains off the Castlefield corridor!

 

[Philip]

Actually you didn't.

There are industrial buildings in the way and there seems to be new housing possibly in the way. There's also housing in the way of your chord at Irlam.

You'd also be putting more trains through Castlefield Junction and Oxford Road. Where would you terminate them?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...0xf286e3948446152a!8m2!3d53.396727!4d-2.31927

As far as the Timperley end goes, I'm thinking of a new stretch of track branching off the existing chord after it has gone under the Cadishead line, ie. south west of Hawthorn Close and then looping round to join the line and head westwards.

 

[Ianno87]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...0xf286e3948446152a!8m2!3d53.396727!4d-2.31927

As far as the Timperley end goes, I'm thinking of a new stretch of track branching off the existing chord after it has gone under the Cadishead line, ie. south west of Hawthorn Close and then looping round to join the line and head westwards.

Use the curvature of the existing chord (already a flange squeal special) as an indication of the tightest curvature likely to be possible on your new proposed chord.

You either loop round in a helter-skelter to the south, or a long reverse curve to the north. Either way involves a colossal viaduct over/aquiring vaste swathes of a leafy residential area. £100s of millions at least (every individual house you hit and have to aquire is at least £250k straightaway), for vitually no benefts, and a huge local area negative impact.

 

[Philip]

Use the curvature of the existing chord (already a flange squeal special) as an indication of the tightest curvature likely to be possible on your new proposed chord.

You either loop round in a helter-skelter to the south, or a long reverse curve to the north. Either way involves a colossal viaduct over/aquiring vaste swathes of a leafy residential area. £100s of millions at least (every individual house you hit and have to aquire is at least £250k straightaway), for vitually no benefts, and a huge local area negative impact.

No viaducts ought to be needed if the green space is used to the south of the existing chord. There appears to be enough space there for the curve not to be too tight for trains, if all the available green space is used.

There is also green space for the building of a north curve at Glazebrook, next to Rowson Drive playing fields.

Glazebrook to Oxford Road is about 10 minutes non-stop and I would think Timperley to Glazebrook would be around 10 minutes as well. It would save at least 10 minutes on the journey time, as well as removing a large obstacle from across the paths at Stockport.

 

[kermit]

No viaducts ought to be needed if the green space is used to the south of the existing chord. I

There is also green space for the building of a north curve at Glazebrook, next to Rowson Drive playing fields.

Glazebrook to Oxford Road is about 10 minutes non-stop and I would think Timperley to Glazebrook would be around 10 minutes as well. It would save at least 10 minutes on the journey time, as well as removing a large obstacle from across the paths at Stockport.

Honestly, that green space you refer to (it used to be sidings) is aligned completely the wrong way for the sort of loop you have in mind, and the existing curve is bad enough for flange squeal. And the repairs needed to the bridges over the Bridgewater and Manchester Ship Canals would be enormously expensive. I'd love to see it, but I'm sorry, it's a non-starter.

 

[Philip]

Honestly, that green space you refer to (it used to be sidings) is aligned completely the wrong way for the sort of loop you have in mind, and the existing curve is bad enough for flange squeal. And the repairs needed to the bridges over the Bridgewater and Manchester Ship Canals would be enormously expensive. I'd love to see it, but I'm sorry, it's a non-starter.

Just on the subject of flange squeal, how do trains manage the Heaton Mersey curve? That looks much tighter than the curve here. I take it it's minimum speed going round there?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The only benefit glazebrook gives you is avoiding manchester on a route towards Stockport and onwards to Sheffield via Hope. What has been lost is the Tiviot Dale route onto glossop and Woodhead (thanks to M63 botched construction!) This lost way could also get you into Victoria via guide bridge and miles platting and Piccadilly via Ashburys but too much infrastructure has been lost particularly around Stockport where Tesco now is and west of the viaduct where the car dealerships are and around Guide Bridge.

 

[Philip]

The only benefit glazebrook gives you is avoiding manchester on a route towards Stockport and onwards to Sheffield via Hope. What has been lost is the Tiviot Dale route onto glossop and Woodhead (thanks to M63 botched construction!) This lost way could also get you into Victoria via guide bridge and miles platting and Piccadilly via Ashburys but too much infrastructure has been lost particularly around Stockport where Tesco now is and west of the viaduct where the car dealerships are and around Guide Bridge.

Perhaps your first suggestion inparticular is more worthwhile than my idea. Would the massive savings in journey time (and a path being freed up) be enough to justify sending the Liverpool-Norwich through Cadishead and avoiding Manchester, compared to the millions of pounds it would cost to repair Cadishead Viaduct first?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only benefit glazebrook gives you is avoiding manchester on a route towards Stockport and onwards to Sheffield via Hope. What has been lost is the Tiviot Dale route onto glossop and Woodhead (thanks to M63 botched construction!) This lost way could also get you into Victoria via guide bridge and miles platting and Piccadilly via Ashburys but too much infrastructure has been lost particularly around Stockport where Tesco now is and west of the viaduct where the car dealerships are and around Guide Bridge.

One might ask the question as to why the perceived avoidance of Manchester has anything to recommend it when viewed from a passenger, rather than an operational, view. With regards to the inward approaches to Stockport towards the former Tiviot Dale station, the line of the M60 motorway which is the orbital Manchester regional motorway uses the said former rail alignment and looking at the geography of the said area with the sheer sandstone bluffs at one side and the Stockport town centre main area of retail under which flows the River Mersey on the other side, I would indeed be impressed to see how well the local authorities would view the removal of such an existing stretch of high-usage motorway in the said area and the construction of another M60 diversionary route in central Stockport as its replacement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Attempted posting thwarted by the "Forum Busy" notification

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps your first suggestion in particular is more worthwhile than my idea. Would the massive savings in journey time (and a path being freed up) be enough to justify sending the Liverpool-Norwich through Cadishead and avoiding Manchester, compared to the millions of pounds it would cost to repair Cadishead Viaduct first?

One might well ask the perceived service frequency and daily passenger usage of such a described route that you state has massive time savings, yet makes no mention whatsoever of the existing single line sections on the inwards route into Stockport which is also a main freight route. Are you aware the speed restrictions that so apply on this line stretch?

You look at the Liverpool to Norwich service in the perspective of the outward journey, but what would be the passenger requirements into Manchester from the stations from Norwich? Is it not the case that the existing junction in the Stockport from the Timperley area takes the route into Stockport, not Sheffield, in the Manchester bound direction? Why should a large city such as Manchester not retain its already-existing direct rail links to the stations en route to Norwich?

I am interested in your budgetary analysis for all the required infrastructural costs required for your aspirational route diversion of the Liverpool to Norwich service that takes it away from Manchester

 

[dewsnapsliding]

The other benefits that any Glazebrook or proto-Tiviot Dale route give you are:

1. The ability to route services from Yorkshire/NW into Manchester Airport without constraining patching at key points crossing Manchester (in whichever direction).
2. The ability to route trains past Manchester without same patching issues as above.

The problem 1. Gives is the necessity then to separate Manchester and Manchester Airport pax, and possibly dilute the loading on both.

 

[daodao]

One might well ask the perceived service frequency and daily passenger usage of such a described route that you state has massive time savings, yet makes no mention whatsoever of the existing single line sections on the inwards route into Stockport which is also a main freight route. Are you aware the speed restrictions that so apply on this line stretch?

You look at the Liverpool to Norwich service in the perspective of the outward journey, but what would be the passenger requirements into Manchester from the stations from Norwich? Is it not the case that the existing junction in the Stockport from the Timperley area takes the route into Stockport, not Sheffield, in the Manchester bound direction? Why should a large city such as Manchester not retain its already-existing direct rail links to the stations en route to Norwich?

I am interested in your budgetary analysis for all the required infrastructural costs required for your aspirational route diversion of the Liverpool to Norwich service that takes it away from Manchester

Even in 1910, when the CLC avoiding line via Northenden was at its peak, and it was possible to do Liverpool Central-Sheffield Victoria in 105 minutes by this route, the vast majority of through trains/connections between Liverpool and Sheffield (Midland and Victoria) were routed via Manchester Central. Bypassing England's premier provincial city is hardly conducive to traffic generation.

Incidentally, review of journeys between Liverpool and Manchester shows that there has been little improvement in service frequency or journey time between these 2 cities over the last 100 years until now, with electrification of the Chat Moss line and introduction of an hourly non-stop service from Liverpool Lime Street to M/c Victoria taking only 32-35 minutes. There was an hourly service from Lime St to M/c Exchange taking 40 minutes in 1910, as well as hourly services via each of the other 2 main routes taking 40 minutes (from Liverpool Exchange to M/c Victoria) or 45 minutes (from Liverpool Central to M/c Central, with a stop at Warrington Central - about the same time as current trips via the CLC line from Lime St to M/c Oxford Rd).

 

[edwin_m]

With regards to the inward approaches to Stockport towards the former Tiviot Dale station, the line of the M60 motorway which is the orbital Manchester regional motorway uses the said former rail alignment and looking at the geography of the said area with the sheer sandstone bluffs at one side and the Stockport town centre main area of retail under which flows the River Mersey on the other side, I would indeed be impressed to see how well the local authorities would view the removal of such an existing stretch of high-usage motorway in the said area and the construction of another M60 diversionary route in central Stockport as its replacement.

The M60 doesn't take up the old rail alignment past the centre of Stockport - those parts that aren't in tunnel are still just about visible, for example from a train on the viaduct, and can also be seen on the OS 25000 map. However I believe the M60 construction did de-stabilise the tunnels so it would be a big job to reinstate that section.

Further east there are other problems, with the route blocked by both a Tesco and a Morrisons. Any reinstatement would have to provide a viaduct over the M60 where it cuts through the formation at a much lower level just west of junction 25.

Where the route re-appears as a freight terminal, there was a junction where the straight ahead route gave access to Woodhead via Godley Junction. However the other route connected to the Marple line at Romiley and would probably be more useful today had the Stockport section never been closed.

 

[Ash Bridge]

The M60 doesn't take up the old rail alignment past the centre of Stockport - those parts that aren't in tunnel are still just about visible, for example from a train on the viaduct, and can also be seen on the OS 25000 map. However I believe the M60 construction did de-stabilise the tunnels so it would be a big job to reinstate that section.

Further east there are other problems, with the route blocked by both a Tesco and a Morrisons. Any reinstatement would have to provide a viaduct over the M60 where it cuts through the formation at a much lower level just west of junction 25.

Where the route re-appears as a freight terminal, there was a junction where the straight ahead route gave access to Woodhead via Godley Junction. However the other route connected to the Marple line at Romiley and would probably be more useful today had the Stockport section never been closed.

I do agree with all you say, as the former Portwood viaduct(s) section remained in situ after construction of the motorway probably at a guess up to the Mid 1990s. I seem to recall the Tilcon facility that was situated roughly at a point which would now be located over part what is the Tesco car park still saw limited use until the final piece of the orbital motorway was constructed which then severed the route between Brinnington Tunnel and Bredbury. I think it would still be possible to reinstate a modern viaduct along this alignment as there are no actual buildings obstructing it, I agree the Morrisons store further up the former line at Bredbury though is a different story.

 

[Ianno87]

The other benefits that any Glazebrook or proto-Tiviot Dale route give you are:

1. The ability to route services from Yorkshire/NW into Manchester Airport without constraining patching at key points crossing Manchester (in whichever direction).
2. The ability to route trains past Manchester without same patching issues as above.

The problem 1. Gives is the necessity then to separate Manchester and Manchester Airport pax, and possibly dilute the loading on both.

1. The whole reason that the trains that serve Manchester Airport also serve central Manchester is precisely that - to serve both markets with one train. Without that, frankly, services purely serving Manchester Aiport would be wildly uneconomical.

Look at the loading of a typical train between Piccadilly and the Airport - not usually quiet, but not heaving either, and even then a decent chunk of passengers only headed to/from the city centre.

Thus a (say) Yorkshire-Piccadilly-Airport train serves two main markets (Yorkshire-Piccadilly, Piccadilly-Airport), but whilst also providing a through Yorkshire-Airport service which would otherwise not be able to stand on its own two legs (in spite of being a sizeable flow)

2. What flows would you feel would benefit from diversion away from central Manchester, and how would you cater for demand to/from Manchester itself?

 

[dewsnapsliding]

1. The whole reason that the trains that serve Manchester Airport also serve central Manchester is precisely that - to serve both markets with one train. Without that, frankly, services purely serving Manchester Aiport would be wildly uneconomical.

Look at the loading of a typical train between Piccadilly and the Airport - not usually quiet, but not heaving either, and even then a decent chunk of passengers only headed to/from the city centre.

Thus a (say) Yorkshire-Piccadilly-Airport train serves two main markets (Yorkshire-Piccadilly, Piccadilly-Airport), but whilst also providing a through Yorkshire-Airport service which would otherwise not be able to stand on its own two legs (in spite of being a sizeable flow)

2. What flows would you feel would benefit from diversion away from central Manchester, and how would you cater for demand to/from Manchester itself?

You appear to be questioning what I wrote as assertions, thus agreeing with me?

Hey ho, I am more than aware of the fact that it combines loadings but given threads on here before where it has been discussed at length that a large number of northern towns and cities value/want a guarantee on direct links to Manchester Airport, at some point the issue will be capacity through Manchester Piccadilly's through platforms and on the route through from Victoria or Salford, the need to avoid huge numbers of crossing movements which kill capacity.

See an example of Reading to Gatwick which it is possible to do quicker with changes, but direct is routed well out of the way via Dorking Deep Dene to maintain a direct link. If capacity for commuter services is compromised into and out of Manchester by those services seeking to maintain direct routes to Manchester Airport, then there is some scope to route direct Airport services avoiding central Manchester, potentially by reinstating railway alignments that albeit are not as quick. Or, new alignments a la southern access to Manchester Airport, which evidently would not serve central Manchester, but remains an aim?

The movements which avoid Manchester would clearly be freight, as I inferred in my first post. Iirc there is something like 1 freight path per hour through Picadilly through platforms in each direction, and (someone else will confirm) but I reckon on many of those having to cross the entire throat at Picadilly to access the Ashburys line which (unless they occur at exactly the same time) also murders capacity at that section. Ideally, you wouldn't be pathing any freight on the 2 tracks from Oxford Road, nor using the capacity through Victoria, if there was a much more useful/less passenger used railway route.

 

[Ianno87]

You appear to be questioning what I wrote as assertions, thus agreeing with me?

Hey ho, I am more than aware of the fact that it combines loadings but given threads on here before where it has been discussed at length that a large number of northern towns and cities value/want a guarantee on direct links to Manchester Airport, at some point the issue will be capacity through Manchester Piccadilly's through platforms and on the route through from Victoria or Salford, the need to avoid huge numbers of crossing movements which kill capacity.

See an example of Reading to Gatwick which it is possible to do quicker with changes, but direct is routed well out of the way via Dorking Deep Dene to maintain a direct link. If capacity for commuter services is compromised into and out of Manchester by those services seeking to maintain direct routes to Manchester Airport, then there is some scope to route direct Airport services avoiding central Manchester, potentially by reinstating railway alignments that albeit are not as quick. Or, new alignments a la southern access to Manchester Airport, which evidently would not serve central Manchester, but remains an aim?

The movements which avoid Manchester would clearly be freight, as I inferred in my first post. Iirc there is something like 1 freight path per hour through Picadilly through platforms in each direction, and (someone else will confirm) but I reckon on many of those having to cross the entire throat at Picadilly to access the Ashburys line which (unless they occur at exactly the same time) also murders capacity at that section. Ideally, you wouldn't be pathing any freight on the 2 tracks from Oxford Road, nor using the capacity through Victoria, if there was a much more useful/less passenger used railway route.

On reflection, I am in fact violently agreeing with you on point 1. (I originally misread you and thought you were proposing split services as a solution to overcrowding - sorry!)

I'm not agreeing with you on point 2 - almost all freight through 13/14 at Piccadilly is to/from Trafford Park, headed to/from the southern WCML. This is routed via Styal, so is relatively unconflicting through Piccadilly anyway.

Even with suitable chords (plural) to access the Partington/Timperley route, there's still no useful way of heading south on the WCML from here, even with the proposed Timperley chord.

 

[Philip]

One might well ask the perceived service frequency and daily passenger usage of such a described route that you state has massive time savings, yet makes no mention whatsoever of the existing single line sections on the inwards route into Stockport which is also a main freight route. Are you aware the speed restrictions that so apply on this line stretch?

You look at the Liverpool to Norwich service in the perspective of the outward journey, but what would be the passenger requirements into Manchester from the stations from Norwich? Is it not the case that the existing junction in the Stockport from the Timperley area takes the route into Stockport, not Sheffield, in the Manchester bound direction? Why should a large city such as Manchester not retain its already-existing direct rail links to the stations en route to Norwich?

I am interested in your budgetary analysis for all the required infrastructural costs required for your aspirational route diversion of the Liverpool to Norwich service that takes it away from Manchester

I've not looked into it in great detail but I did a quick google/wiki of Cadishead Viaduct and indeed it would cost millions to repair it on its own. But other than that and the bridge over the Bridgewater Canal at Broadheath, there aren't many other obstacles.

It seems everything has to serve either Manchester or Leeds nowadays. Liverpool and Sheffield just don't get the same level of frequency, despite being of a similar size. Why not focus on improving journey times and capacity between these two cities (and other long distance routes) whilst having separate and more frequent services between Liverpool and Manchester...and between Manchester and Sheffield?

 

[daodao]

I've not looked into it in great detail but I did a quick google/wiki of Cadishead Viaduct and indeed it would cost millions to repair it on its own. But other than that and the bridge over the Bridgewater Canal at Broadheath, there aren't many other obstacles.

It seems everything has to serve either Manchester or Leeds nowadays. Liverpool and Sheffield just don't get the same level of frequency, despite being of a similar size. Why not focus on improving journey times and capacity between these two cities (and other long distance routes) whilst having separate and more frequent services between Liverpool and Manchester...and between Manchester and Sheffield?

Manchester and Leeds are somewhat more important cities than Liverpool and Sheffield. There are reasonable services between Manchester and Liverpool (although little better than 100 years ago) and between Manchester and Sheffield (although somewhat overcrowded and might be better if they were lengthened and all run by EMT), and there should continue to be 1 through train per hour between Liverpool and Sheffield, via Stockport.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Does anyone have any creative/outlandish ideas on how to divert that one freight train per hour off the busy Oxford Road viaduct? seems like a waste of capacity but looking at a map of the rail network as well as old abandoned alignments there doesn't seem to be any short to medium term solution.