Where to build west facing bays in Manchester?

[dosxuk]

Stockport

Four track the whole of the castlefield area, fix Oxford Road, build platforms 15&16 (and possibly 17&18 while you're at it), then fix the flat crossing by the junction down to the airport.

It might even be worth it to look at the local stations on the way out to Stockport and see if the junction between fast/slow lines can be moved to after Stockport, pairing by use rather than direction for that whole run - would certainly reduce the number of conflicts arrive Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I perfectly accept the reasoning for not building the Manchester HS2 station as a through station, certainly the answer to the capacity problems in central Manchester anywhere on the continent would be to build a mixed-use („S-Bahn“ and „regular trains“) tunnel connecting the Stockport line (probably with a connection from MIA too) through Piccadilly to the Bolton and Chat Moss line, reserving the Castlefield Corridor for CLC and Ordsall Chord services.

There must be a point where the cost difference to building Piccadilly platforms 15+16, expanding Victoria, etc will not, in sum, be noticeable anymore, especially as these are not likely to be long-term fixes, whereas a tunnel would.

I think a "pre-metro" tunnel similar to the Den Haag Tramtunnel is more likely, if we are thinking medium to long term.

 

[Ken H]

Genuine question - given nearly all the lines in Manchester are currently on viaducts, where would your portals be? And separately, is tunneling under Manchester actually viable given the foundations for tall buildings and rivers?

and geology.

 

[snowball]

I am sure you know this was proposed by the PTE around 1970 but was deemed unaffordable. So they did metrolink instead.

Not quite the same proposal. The Picc-Vicc tunnel would, at its Victoria end, have pointed towards Bury, and would have served Bolton by reopening the closed line from Radcliffe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genuine question - given nearly all the lines in Manchester are currently on viaducts, where would your portals be? And separately, is tunneling under Manchester actually viable given the foundations for tall buildings and rivers?

Picc-Vic was certainly feasible (it got a long way down the line before being canned), but other tunnels may not be. As with London (which has far more such obstructions) "it depends".

 

[zwk500]

Picc-Vic was certainly feasible (it got a long way down the line before being canned), but other tunnels may not be. As with London (which has far more such obstructions) "it depends".

Big difference between deep-level tube and mainline-connected tunnels though. I don't doubt a tunnel could be dug, it's whether it would be suitable for a crossrail-type purpose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Big difference between deep-level tube and mainline-connected tunnels though. I don't doubt a tunnel could be dug, it's whether it would be suitable for a crossrail-type purpose.

Picc-Vic would have used PEP stock similar to Merseyrail (albeit probably 313s for OHLE), which is "full size" (ish) mainline stock. So no reason why not.

 

[geoffk]

No-one has yet mentioned the Ordsall Lane flyover, although it's not strictly on-topic. Is it actually feasible with the road bridges in the area, both over and under?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

No-one has yet mentioned the Ordsall Lane flyover, although it's not strictly on-topic. Is it actually feasible with the road bridges in the area, both over and under?

I recall some early stage outline design work from several years ago which suggested some quite ridiculously steep gradients.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I am sure you know this was proposed by the PTE around 1970 but was deemed unaffordable. So they did metrolink instead.

It was deemed unaffordable not because it was a financially poor scheme but because the declining state of the country's economy meant that there was simply no money available to fund it. The project was cancelled in 1977 but it was not until 1988 that Metrolink was approved. Sooner or later a Salford Crescent-Piccadilly/Ardwick/Longsight heavy rail tunnel will start to look like a good idea: in many European countries it would certainly be allowed for in the planning for HS2/NPR but we don't do the transport big vision thing here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was deemed unaffordable not because it was a financially poor scheme but because the declining state of the country's economy meant that there was simply no money available to fund it. The project was cancelled in 1977 but it was not until 1988 that Metrolink was approved. Sooner or later a Salford Crescent-Piccadilly/Ardwick/Longsight heavy rail tunnel will start to look like a good idea: in many European countries it would certainly be allowed for in the planning for HS2/NPR but we don't do the transport big vision thing here.

I'm genuinely not sure how needed it is, when you consider other options like a cut-and-cover Metrolink city centre tunnel like the Dutch built in Den Haag, and what else could be moved to an improved Victoria by the simple expedient of purchasing and knocking down the Arena and rebuilding the station as a proper, high quality InterCity station, which while it wouldn't cost £1 would be way, way cheaper than another Crossrail.

That would then, with minor platform extension work at Oxford Road and possibly Deansgate, allow you to convert the present Castlefield to an equivalent of Thameslink, which can take 24 trains per hour per direction on a double track line with two-platform stations without any difficulty at all, well in excess of what Castlefield would ever need to do in that form.

 

[cle]

Stockport

Four track the whole of the castlefield area, fix Oxford Road, build platforms 15&16 (and possibly 17&18 while you're at it), then fix the flat crossing by the junction down to the airport.

It might even be worth it to look at the local stations on the way out to Stockport and see if the junction between fast/slow lines can be moved to after Stockport, pairing by use rather than direction for that whole run - would certainly reduce the number of conflicts arrive Piccadilly.

I have always thought some investment in Stockport could be useful, as an outer rail hub. I know it isn't the main destination, but it could support a greater level of commuter frequency (1-2tph extra to the likes of Crewe, Chester, Stoke, Buxton/Sheffield way too) - which could enable more local journeys, and connections at Stockport to other places - as well as feeding onto longer, electric services into Manchester. And if it had the Met one day, even more options.

Those places should retain Picc directs of course, but it might be an option for growth (see bays at Reading facing Newbury, or Stratford for WA, overspill for frequency)

 

[Austriantrain]

I'm genuinely not sure how needed it is, when you consider other options like a cut-and-cover Metrolink city centre tunnel like the Dutch built in Den Haag,

But that would only be of help to rail capacity from the west if a significant amount of local services switch to Tram-Train metrolink services (as some are proposing for the CLC).

and what else could be moved to an improved Victoria by the simple expedient of purchasing and knocking down the Arena and rebuilding the station as a proper, high quality InterCity station, which while it wouldn't cost £1 would be way, way cheaper than another Crossrail.

And rather than integrating Manchester rail services around Piccadilly and HS2/NPR, it would actually disintegrate it because a large number of services that nowadays reach Piccadilly would not anymore. Much as in Birmingham (where people from Wolverhampton will not really benefit from HS2, eg) it would impede spreading the benefits of HS2/NPR through the wider region (not by through HS2 trains, but good connections).

It might be cheaper in the short-term, but it wouldn’t probably be a long-term solution, so incurring further costs later on.

That would then, with minor platform extension work at Oxford Road and possibly Deansgate, allow you to convert the present Castlefield to an equivalent of Thameslink, which can take 24 trains per hour per direction on a double track line with two-platform stations without any difficulty at all, well in excess of what Castlefield would ever need to do in that form.

But than the Thameslink core has less flat junctions than Castlefield and the number of trains you could run would not substantially be different from now.

Please don’t get me wrong; I am not arguing that a rail tunnel is the only or the best solution, after all you are the local experts. But proposing very expensive schemes that disintegrate the system seems wrong to me and in any case the exact opposite of what has been very successfully done elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And rather than integrating Manchester rail services around Piccadilly and HS2/NPR, it would actually disintegrate it because a large number of services that nowadays reach Piccadilly would not anymore. Much as in Birmingham (where people from Wolverhampton will not really benefit from HS2, eg) it would impede spreading the benefits of HS2/NPR through the wider region (not by through HS2 trains, but good connections).

People coming from the west can largely connect onto HS2 at Preston, Warrington or Wigan; they needn't go to Manchester to do so. OK, Manchester will have a more frequent service, but the connection isn't broken per-se.

Birmingham is not the problem people think it is because the walk from New St to Curzon St is not an awful lot further than from the entrance of Manchester Piccadilly to platform 13 or from the entrance of Paddington to the Hammersmith and City Line platforms, and similar to Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool Central which lots of people do in preference to connecting via the Wirral Line. It's also mostly undercover, though there does need to be a tidy-up and perhaps full pedestrianisation of the road tunnel that the shortest route runs through as presently it's just a little bit grim. (Don't put in New St to Curzon St in Google Maps, that'll take you to the old building, the new station will extend far further west).

 

[Austriantrain]

People coming from the west can largely connect onto HS2 at Preston, Warrington or Wigan; they needn't go to Manchester to do so. OK, Manchester will have a more frequent service, but the connection isn't broken per-se.

Birmingham is not the problem people think it is because the walk from New St to Curzon St is not an awful lot further than from the entrance of Manchester Piccadilly to platform 13 or from the entrance of Paddington to the Hammersmith and City Line platforms, and similar to Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool Central which lots of people do in preference to connecting via the Wirral Line. It's also mostly undercover, though there does need to be a tidy-up and perhaps full pedestrianisation of the road tunnel that the shortest route runs through as presently it's just a little bit grim. (Don't put in New St to Curzon St in Google Maps, that'll take you to the old building, the new station will extend far further west).

As ever, what really should be done is to agree on a long-term (2050) timetable goal and then define the required infrastructure, obviously not spending a cent more than needed - Swiss-style, and they are very good at it.

 

[Clip]

Once the new arena opens out by the Etihad, it may be that the current arena becomes redundant. If that happens, there's your opportunity

This wont happen - its planned to have a redevelopment of the site and has got some new naming rights on it too - and Manchester is big enough for 2 large venues.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

As ever, what really should be done is to agree on a long-term (2050) timetable goal and then define the required infrastructure, obviously not spending a cent more than needed - Swiss-style, and they are very good at it.

Unfortunately the vision of UK politicians rarely extends beyond the expected date of the next general election. Since worthwhile transport projects tend to take somewhat longer than that timespan to bring to fruition it is hardly surprising that so much of public transport here compares unfavourably with that found elsewhere in Europe. Even the title of this thread reflects that ie seeking to discuss an idea that could never be more than a sticking plaster solution to just the current capacity problems around Manchester, never mind the longer term issues likely to arise from new travel demands arising from the building of HS2/NPR or just general decarbonisation of transport.