Manchester & North West Transformation Programme

[td97]

Network Rail are currently tendering for contractors to undertake design development work for two electrification schemes.

The lucky lines concerned are Manchester to Rochdale and the CLC line (Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington).

Public domain detailed here suggests early 2030 for completion. https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=1277&Ver=4

The MNTP will also include Manchester Airport station remodelling and platform extensions (GRIP 3 contract awarded), and Manchester Oxford Rd remodelling (tender process underway)

 

[Bletchleyite]

About time for the CLC. There is barely a line in the North West that would benefit more.

 

[snowball]

Great news but, to state the obvious, progress on the ground depends on further rounds of funding.

 

[Grumpy Git]

2030 for the CLC! I'm glad it's not a big job!

Great news if it happens though.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

About time for the CLC. There is barely a line in the North West that would benefit more.

And surely some good effects too from faster accelerating electric trains which may help Castlefield corridor issues a little.

 

[The exile]

Great news but, to state the obvious, progress on the ground depends on further rounds of funding.

I would imagine that this suggests there have been quite a few nods and winks in the background.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So would this be the 3rd or 4th remodelling of Manchester Airport station?
Is the Oxford Road remodelling the same as in the rebuild promised with the Ordsall Chord scheme, or just some more bi-di operation?
Neither electrification scheme seems complicated now that the Man/Liv ends have been/are being wired, but there are quite a few sandstone arch bridges on the CLC.
Can the existing power feeding arrangements support the extra wires?

 

[pemma]

I think TfGM will be disappointed with the mention of Sunday services for December 2022 in those meeting notes. They were pushing for hourly on both the Altrincham and Macclesfield routes and the response seems to be that Northern will look an earlier first train on the Macclesfield route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So would this be the 3rd or 4th remodelling of Manchester Airport station?

I don't know, but it's really time to give it at least one 270m platform, as there's more than a passing chance that post-HS2 they will want to terminate Pendolinos there from Scotland, and there is also a need to be able to run double 397 or 802 sets on TPE Scotlands at very busy times.

(Quite a contrast from the 1990s when a double 158 was a long train!)

 

[snowball]

I would imagine that this suggests there have been quite a few nods and winks in the background.

No doubt, but there were more than nods and winks that the Castlefield curve would be followed by the original Oxford Road and Piccadilly scheme.

So would this be the 3rd or 4th remodelling of Manchester Airport station?

The original platforms were those now known as 2 and 3. The original construction of the station (completed 1993) was the first time Outwood Lane (the dual carriageway approach road to the airport from the M56) was dug up to put a railway bridge underneath.

The first remodelling (and the second digging up of Outwood Lane to put a railway bridge underneath) was for the platform now known as 1 in 2008.

The second remodelling (and the third digging up of Outwood Lane to put a railway bridge underneath) was for the Metrolink platforms, which would be known as 5 and 6 if they were numbered in the same sequence as the Network Rail platforms.

The third remodelling (and the fourth digging up of Outwood Lane to put a railway bridge underneath) was for platform 4. This started while the Metrolink works were still under construction, but financial authority for it had not been available in time to combine the third and fourth diggings up of Outwood Lane.

Any platform lengthening would be the fourth reconstruction of the station but would hopefully not need another digging up of Outwood Lane. I imagine it might require moving of some of the crossovers that make up the throat, and/or demolition/replacement of the small bridge that links two sections of car park.

Is the Oxford Road remodelling the same as in the rebuild promised with the Ordsall Chord scheme, or just some more bi-di operation?

I'm not sure how the tracks are used at present. Could it be a few track layout changes within the present viaduct envelope, to facilitate use of the two middle of the through platforms for terminating trains????

 

[59CosG95]

New Civil Engineer do a good breakdown of all the options:

Manchester Rail Blueprint​

2022-2025​

Funded upgrades

• December 2022 timetable change and infrastructure to support it
• Stalybridge electrification (2023-2025)
• Wigan to Bolton electrification (2023-2025)
• Swap of diesel units (2022-2023)
• Swap of electric units (2022-2023)

Upgrades subject to business case

• More timetable changes on the existing network (2023-2024)
• Castlefield Corridor and off-peak options (2024-2025)
• Manchester Victoria capacity (commitment 2023-2025)
• Manchester Airport remodelling (commitment 2023-2025)
• Salford Crescent additional platform (commitment 2023-2025)
• Manchester Piccadilly passenger capacity (commitment 2023-2025)
• Further rolling stock procurement, in line with decarbonisation and post-Covid demand (2023-beyond 2025)
• Capability for improved performance through reduced conflicts (2025 onwards)

Next steps

• Electrification options; reconfigure the train service to enable full electric operation (2024 or 2025)

2025-2040​

Upgrades subject to business case

• Further rolling stock procurement, in line with decarbonisation and post-Covid demand
• Delivery of Manchester Oxford Road remodelling (mid-2020s)
• Delivery of Manchester Piccadilly passenger capacity (mid-late 2020s)
• Delivery of Manchester Victoria capacity (mid-late 2020s)
• Delivery of Manchester Airport remodelling (mid-late 2020s)
  • Capability to run longer trains to Manchester Airport
• Delivery of Salford Crescent additional platform (mid-late 2020s)
• Resignalling of Central Manchester (mid-2020s)
• Improved infrastructure in Central Manchester; additional capacity to reduce conflicts, potentially a new service pattern (Option selection and design, early 2020s; delivery mid-late 2020s)
• Stockport corridor resignalling (Option selection and design, early 2020s; delivery mid-late 2020s)
• Cheshire Lines and Rochdale electrification schemes (Option selection and design, early-mid 2020s; delivery late 2020s – early 2030s)
  • Further electrification options to be investigated
• Additional depot and stabling facilities (Option selection and design, early-mid 2020s; delivery late 2020s – early 2030s)
  • Options to re-design the pattern of South Manchester and West Coast Main Line services

 

[td97]

Is the Oxford Road remodelling the same as in the rebuild promised with the Ordsall Chord scheme, or just some more bi-di operation?

Different to the Ordsall Chord scheme. Potentially 3 through platforms with the bay moved to the centre of existing P2/P3 island. With an additional "station congestion relief" sub-project too.

Neither electrification scheme seems complicated now that the Man/Liv ends have been/are being wired, but there quite a few sandstone arch bridges on the CLC.

Both electrification schemes are titled "decarbonisation" within Network Rail. Which suggests a move away from the whole route, all discipline type upgrades previous/current electrification schemes are and a move to projects purely to provide OLE with as little other intervention as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both electrification schemes are titled "decarbonisation" within Network Rail. Which suggests a move away from the whole route, all discipline type upgrades previous/current electrification schemes are and a move to projects purely to provide OLE with as little other intervention as possible.

Because of the large number of stops, just putting the wires up on the CLC (provided they keep 319s away from it) will allow for significant timetable upgrade, e.g. a second stopper east of Warrington and not skip-stopping the likes of Chassen Road.

 

[plugwash]

I don't know, but it's really time to give it at least one 270m platform, as there's more than a passing chance that post-HS2 they will want to terminate Pendolinos there from Scotland

Are you suggesting that when London to Scotland is taken over by HS2, they might cascade the Pendolinos to Manchester to Scotland services?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The extra platform at Salford Crescent would be a significant benefit.
No specific mention of extra platforms at Salford Central, which would not be a network benefit - but they might be in the generic "central Manchester" improvements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you suggesting that when London to Scotland is taken over by HS2, they might cascade the Pendolinos to Manchester to Scotland services?

If they are still in a usable condition there is a reasonable chance they may end up used on that sort of service, yes. The reduction from 8tph (the 9th is Voyagers) to 4tph of classic line trains will render rather a lot of them spare. But even if they didn't, it seems clear that being able to operate double 397s or 802s on some Scottish services (e.g. Manchester-Edinburgh during the Fringe) would be of great benefit.

 

[Greybeard33]

New Civil Engineer do a good breakdown of all the options:

The NCE list is based on the Network Rail/DfT Manchester Rail Blueprint document, https://democracy.transportfortheno...Blueprint for Services and Infrastructure.pdf. This illustrates the options in the form of a timeline chart.

The TfN commentary report, Manchester Blueprint for Services and Infrastructure, has some more detail on the options, including Salford area east facing turnback and new northwest platform at Manchester Victoria in Tranche 1 (2025 delivery). Also in Tranche 1, consideration of turnback facilities on the CLC line in the Warrington area, to provide more flexibility in the timetable and additional calls at some stations along the route, and to restore cross-Warrington connectivity.

In Tranche 2 (late 2020s) Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16 are still under consideration for delivery at the same time as the Oxford Road remodelling.

Tranche 3 (early 2030s) might include an additional Platform 0 at Piccadilly to increase capacity, as well as remodelling of the station throat and grade separation of the "major junctions" in the Stockport corridor.

 

[Mollman]

I can't quite see the logic of Rochdale electrification over something like the Marple lines, unless it is going to be the first phase of a guaranteed full Calder Valley electrification and / or there is a plan for a half-hourly Rochdale - Victoria (and beyond) stopping train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't quite see the logic of Rochdale electrification over something like the Marple lines, unless it is going to be the first phase of a guaranteed full Calder Valley electrification and / or there is a plan for a half-hourly Rochdale - Victoria (and beyond) stopping train.

Rose Hill is planned to be Metrolinked. The CLC has been discussed a lot, but I guess this confirms its heavy rail future, even if the stopping services from Liverpool end up being Merseyrail extensions.

 

[Mollman]

Rose Hill is planned to be Metrolinked. The CLC has been discussed a lot, but I guess this confirms its heavy rail future, even if the stopping services from Liverpool end up being Merseyrail extensions.

Had forgotten about Metrolink expansion which would cover the Atherton lines too. I completely understand CLC electrification and can't understand why it hasn't already been done.

 

[td97]

The extra platform at Salford Crescent would be a significant benefit.
No specific mention of extra platforms at Salford Central, which would not be a network benefit - but they might be in the generic "central Manchester" improvements.

Salford Central has two proposed schemes upcoming, unrelated to MNTP, and which will be delivered much sooner.
First is CP6 platform work at existing P1/P2 to provide compliant stepping and tactile paving.
Second is reinstatement of P3/P4 under a separate TfGM scheme which includes private funding from all the recent property developments in the area.

 

[Moonshot]

I think TfGM will be disappointed with the mention of Sunday services for December 2022 in those meeting notes. They were pushing for hourly on both the Altrincham and Macclesfield routes and the response seems to be that Northern will look an earlier first train on the Macclesfield route.

Extra sunday services are wholly reliant on Sundays being part of the working week for drivers and guards. Until resolved, Sundays will simply be run on a " wing and a prayer " basis. Its obviously frustrating for a lot of stakeholders, particularly when you see the amount of expensive rolling stock standing idle at depots on Sundays.

 

[snowball]

Salford Central has two proposed schemes upcoming, unrelated to MNTP, and which will be delivered much sooner.
First is CP6 platform work at existing P1/P2 to provide compliant stepping and tactile paving.
Second is reinstatement of P3/P4 under a separate TfGM scheme which includes private funding from all the recent property developments in the area.

I'd heard of the first half of this but not the second.

Supposedly TfGM got funding from DfT about 8 years ago for 3 extra platforms at Salford Central (making 5, to match the number of tracks through the station in the post-Ordsall Chord layout), but Network Rail allegedly spent the money without creating the platforms (and put a signal in the way).

 

[Greybeard33]

Rose Hill is planned to be Metrolinked. The CLC has been discussed a lot, but I guess this confirms its heavy rail future, even if the stopping services from Liverpool end up being Merseyrail extensions.

I do not think these documents confirm any infrastructure enhancements, other than those already funded (TRU, Hope Valley Capacity and Wigan - Bolton electrification). Everything else is "subject to business case", and those business cases might or might not satisfy Treasury investment criteria when decision time comes.

Likewise TfGM's tram-train "plans" are only aspirations, subject to business case development and funding. The final version of the Salford Crescent Development Framework document, published last year, deleted provision for a Metrolink connection to the Atherton line, which had been shown in previous drafts. It now only shows Metrolink tram lines from Salford Crescent to Media City UK and to the city centre, with a transport interchange at the existing station.

https://crescentsalford.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Development-Framework_18122020.pdf

 

[pemma]

Rose Hill is planned to be Metrolinked.

Had forgotten about Metrolink expansion which would cover the Atherton lines too.

Likewise TfGM's tram-train "plans" are only aspirations, subject to business case development and funding.

TfGM put forward aspirations for tram-trains from Hale or Altrincham to Rose Hill Marple, with lines being shared between Metrolink and rail services. I think they dismissed an option for 3rd rail DC on the shared sections. But I'm not sure whether they reached a conclusion over whether to use dual voltage trams, trams with batteries or to wire parts of the National Rail network with DC overhead electrics. That's quite an important consideration, as that will affect the cost of any project.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfGM put forward aspirations for tram-trains from Hale or Altrincham to Rose Hill Marple, with lines being shared between Metrolink and rail services. I think they dismissed an option for 3rd rail DC on the shared sections. But I'm not sure whether they reached a conclusion over whether to use dual voltage trams, trams with batteries or to wire parts of the National Rail network with DC overhead electrics. That's quite an important consideration, as that will affect the cost of any project.

There's little point heavy-rail electrifying Marple (rather than Rose Hill) unless you're going all the way to Sheffield, or at least New Mills but that'd only give you 1tph as an EMU. If Northern got new bi-modes (as they should) it'd be different, but as they've just gone out to tender for more DMUs (very foolish in my view) there's hardly anything to gain.

Yes, there are a few options for Rose Hill - to me making via Bredbury (the busier of the two) tram only OHLE (even if diesel freights have to use it too - do they?) with the New Mills/Sheffield going via Guide Bridge would be the best way. The trams could run on street from Piccadilly to Ashburys to avoid any crossover with the 25kV. Romiley is the only issue left, which could be two single lines Navigation Road style.

 

[pemma]

Romiley is the only issue left, which could be two single lines Navigation Road style.

Eliminating the single track bottleneck at Navigation Road was one of the objectives of the Hale/Altrincham to Rose Hill proposal. It creates problems when trams don't run to time and usually results in a southbound service being terminated at Timperley to prevent delays in the city centre later on. The local rail user's group asked that they ensure the trams that connect with trains at Altrincham aren't terminated short but Metrolink control don't listen to requests like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eliminating the single track bottleneck at Navigation Road was one of the objectives of the Hale/Altrincham to Rose Hill proposal. It creates problems when trams don't run to time and usually results in a southbound service being terminated at Timperley to prevent delays in the city centre later on. The local rail user's group asked that they ensure the trams that connect with trains at Altrincham aren't terminated short but Metrolink control don't listen to requests like that.

That's more of an issue with the 10 trams per hour Alty has, though. I would be very surprised if Rose Hill didn't get 5, it's got nowhere near the same traffic potential.

 

[plugwash]

I completely understand CLC electrification and can't understand why it hasn't already been done.

I suspect because in terms of the number of DMU cars that can be replaced with EMU cars per mile of track electrified it doesn't score that highly.

Electrifying one of the two lines* between Manchester and Liverpool was enough to allow the fast Liverpool to Manchester airport services to be electrified and to feed into a future transpennine electrification. Afaict that has left the CLC with just the stoppers and the Nottingham/Norwich train. The former only have a relatively small amount of under the wires running and were histroically relatively short trains, Yhe latter has a lot of under the wires running at the southern end of the route, but it would take a lot more than just wiring the CLC to let it run electric.

* And if you are only going to electrify one, the chat moss makes far more sense than the CLC, because the chat moss has a junction with the WCML and the CLC does not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect because in terms of the number of DMU cars that can be replaced with EMU cars per mile of track electrified it doesn't score that highly.

Electrifying one of the two lines* between Manchester and Liverpool was enough to allow the fast Liverpool to Manchester airport services to be electrified and to feed into a future transpennine electrification. Afaict that has left the CLC with just the stoppers and the Nottingham/Norwich train. The former only have a relatively small amount of under the wires running and were histroically relatively short trains, Yhe latter has a lot of under the wires running at the southern end of the route, but it would take a lot more than just wiring the CLC to let it run electric.

* And if you are only going to electrify one, the chat moss makes far more sense than the CLC, because the chat moss has a junction with the WCML and the CLC does not.

I'd certainly agree that Chat Moss first made most sense, but the CLC benefits because of the number of intermediate stations. The only other way to square that circle is to close some of them. Though to be fair using 195s would make sense in the meantime, they can accelerate as well as an average to poor EMU like a 319 (though not a fast EMU like a 331).

I wonder if this plan is one reason why TPE are looking to lease bi-mode locos for the Mk5s?