MUFC wanting to rebuild Old Trafford - what to do with Manchester United Football Ground?

[Bletchleyite]

An on board toilet More seriously though there's far lass ambiguity around getting the train there, you know what you catching, where it's going, and that you don't need to change.

Who doesn't need to change? People from Liverpool, not a place well known for containing lots of MUFC fans? People from busy metropolises like Chassen Road and Humphrey Park? Seriously?

If you wanted a direct service which would serve the largest numbers of fans of this well-known South East club, a Pendolino from Euston would be it.

(I'm aware that with MCFC's recent successes and fancier stadium and MUFC's recent failures that this is not as true as it used to be)

 

[py_megapixel]

An on board toilet More seriously though there's far lass ambiguity around getting the train there, you know what you catching, where it's going, and that you don't need to change. For anyone not familiar with the area that can be the difference between going by public transport and driving, messing about with multiple mode interchanges puts the average passenger off. Plus rail's quicker.

There would be nothing to stop through tickets being issued to the football ground via Metrolink, and large amounts of United-branded signage being deployed to direct passengers to the tram platforms and tell them which one to board. Some passengers probably wouldn't even notice they were on a tram rather than a train.

It also provides the potential to keep away fans segregated into and out of the ground, and away from Manchester, without potential conflict points.

So does Metrolink. In fact it does it better because there are multiple stops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There would be nothing to stop through tickets being issued to the football ground via Metrolink, and large amounts of United-branded signage being deployed to direct passengers to the tram platforms and tell them which one to board. Some passengers probably wouldn't even notice they were on a tram rather than a train.

To some it's just like the Underground, given that you go downstairs at Picc to get to it, and nobody who goes to London seems to have issues understanding that. (People unfamiliar with Manchester won't know that the station is up on a massive plinth and that Metrolink is at ground level, while people who know Manchester know what it is anyway).

 

[LOL The Irony]

More seriously though there's far lass ambiguity around getting the train there, you know what you catching, where it's going, and that you don't need to change. For anyone not familiar with the area that can be the difference between going by public transport and driving, messing about with multiple mode interchanges puts the average passenger off. Plus rail's quicker. It also provides the potential to keep away fans segregated into and out of the ground, and away from Manchester, without potential conflict points.

You put it into words better than I could .

It's better for it to be there as a multi-pronged attack to the transport problems then to eliminate it as a possibility though, surely? Even if it's just 600 people at a time, it's 600 at a time that aren't being pushed onto other forms of transport.

What?! We can solve issues with out defaulting to/expecting Metrolink to take the strain? Never!

I still don't really know which service you are talking about, sorry. There currently isn't a semi-fast service from Crewe to Liverpool via the CLC, and no such service is planned to be split or curtailed at Piccadilly as far as I know.

I explained that it was the Liverpool - Crewe service.

Anyone coming from further afield on the WCML will have to change anyway. It makes very little difference whether the vehicle they change onto has yellow or blue branding.

At Crewe, right, they get off their service from wherever, right, and then get onto a direct service to Old Trafford. Right?

Well, you are the one who created a thread and asked us to discuss it now... I'm not sure what else you expect us to base our assessment on.

The Castlefield upgrade, like I have.

There would be nothing to stop through tickets being issued to the football ground via Metrolink, and large amounts of United-branded signage being deployed to direct passengers to the tram platforms and tell them which one to board. Some passengers probably wouldn't even notice they were on a tram rather than a train.


So does Metrolink. In fact it does it better because there are multiple stops.

You seem to be ignoring @Spartacus's suggestion of having a multi-pronged approach, simply to stick to your idea of Metrolink is the best answer to everything.

 

[mmh]

The staggered arrivals caused by frequent small trams is an upside for crowd management, not a downside.

You keep saying this as if it is an unquestionable truth, but I'm afraid it just rather shows you know little about crowd management at large football grounds. The police would much rather not have people arriving in dribs and drabs, they like to know where people are, or are likely to be. That's why they herd people, especially for fixtures where they expect (often know) there will be trouble to deal with.

It's common for the police force of the away team at such fixtures to be present. They know who they're watching, and the last thing they want is "go enjoy yourself in the city centre, then just get the tram there."

Why do you think football specials exist?

 

[cle]

There are something like 20 trams per hour from Trafford Bar to Manchester in peaks - which could be replicated for match times.

Plus 10 tph to Alty, 10tph to Chorlton and so forth outbound. If Pomona was pushed as an alt stadium stop, you have the Trafford Centre and Eccles lines there and you spread users around (less local traffic admittedly, gladly for MediaCity folk - but another 10tph to town too).

That is 30tph to Central Manchester between them - a mix of Picc and Vic, and more than any heavy rail has and will ever provide for MUFC. Given many go for a drink, walk/cab somewhere (like Castlefield itself - not a long walk), and head out of town in the various directions the Met enables + car/bus, it's much better than most stadiums' provision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think football specials exist?

Three reasons, primarily:
1. To keep home and away fans apart;
2. To keep often loud and sometimes violent football fans away from other passengers, who may be scared by their presence;
3. To provide extra capacity on routes where the existing train service could not accommodate them.

Plus in BR days when it'd be whatever knackered, rotting old Mk1s they could find, because if they smashed the train up they could just send it for scrap.

There are something like 20 trams per hour from Trafford Bar to Manchester in peaks - which could be replicated for match times.

Plus 10 tph to Alty, 10tph to Chorlton and so forth outbound. If Pomona was pushed as an alt stadium stop, you have the Trafford Centre and Eccles lines there and you spread users around (less local traffic admittedly, gladly for MediaCity folk - but another 10tph to town too).

That is 30tph to Central Manchester between them - a mix of Picc and Vic, and more than any heavy rail has and will ever provide for MUFC. Given many go for a drink, walk/cab somewhere (like Castlefield itself - not a long walk), and head out of town in the various directions the Met enables + car/bus, it's much better than most stadiums' provision.

It's also the entire basis of the Etihad Stadium's travel plan. OK, that's 20K smaller, but Old Trafford is near two tram lines.

It's common for the police force of the away team at such fixtures to be present. They know who they're watching, and the last thing they want is "go enjoy yourself in the city centre, then just get the tram there."

The trains to MUFC Halt were exactly the same, as extensions of Crewe stoppers. Most fans would join them on Castlefield having hung around in the centre for a bit. MUFC fans are so distributed around the UK that there is no obvious origin for a through train (though I do genuinely half-suspect, half-in-jest that of the origins of trains that go to Manchester, London Euston would actually find the largest number).

 

[Spartacus]

It's fine for it to be gone forever, because it's been replaced by a brand new (well, 20 year old) tramway which was built since it opened and has basically rendered it awkward and unnecessary. The railway does not have to be preserved in aspic.



I challenge you to get anywhere near 600 on the existing services on the CLC in say the hour before kick-off. You won't.

Reopening it would not only be awkward, but of a direct negative impact on Castlefield and existing services. And hardly anyone used the services when they did exist, so why bother?

I'm basing it on using a pair of 323s or similar traction, which the last time I used it was packed. Usage was probably poor because before it didn't always run, some matches it would, others it wouldn't. Having an unreliable service almost guarantees poor patronage.

Who doesn't need to change? People from Liverpool, not a place well known for containing lots of MUFC fans? People from busy metropolises like Chassen Road and Humphrey Park? Seriously?

If you wanted a direct service which would serve the largest numbers of fans of this well-known South East club, a Pendolino from Euston would be it.

(I'm aware that with MCFC's recent successes and fancier stadium and MUFC's recent failures that this is not as true as it used to be)

I'm talking about once you get the train in the right direction, taking way the worry of using what for many will be an unfamiliar service, like the tram. If you know you can get the train direct from Piccadilly, or from somewhere west, it's a lot easier and less stressful than having to rely on a tram which you may never have used.

There would be nothing to stop through tickets being issued to the football ground via Metrolink, and large amounts of United-branded signage being deployed to direct passengers to the tram platforms and tell them which one to board. Some passengers probably wouldn't even notice they were on a tram rather than a train.

So does Metrolink. In fact it does it better because there are multiple stops.

Why not have both train and metrolink though? I don't know about it offering segregation when away fans will have to walk past a load of Man U fans to get to the tram stops, rather than a station which would actually be within the ground. A new station could easily be built with different entrances and exits based on who was using it and where they needed to go. Train of Man U fans arrives, they all go out exit A, which is shut when they the leave. Train of Newcastle fans arrive and they leave through exit B straight into their stand.

I think we need to get past the idea of reopening the old station in it's old form, I simply can't see THAT happening. But what I can see being useful is opening a station in a similar location using the same chord which could be more useful than the old one, and just because there's now a tram doesn't mean that the railway can automatically be done way with, that sounds like something 60 years out of date. Luckily the trams aren't CAF ones anyway....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm talking about once you get the train in the right direction, taking way the worry of using what for many will be an unfamiliar service, like the tram. If you know you can get the train direct from Piccadilly, or from somewhere west, it's a lot easier and less stressful than having to rely on a tram which you may never have used.

Most MUFC fans will not be going to a match for the first time. For those who are, rocking up wearing their replica kit and following/asking others also wearing it is very likely to result in them being directed the right way.

Why not have both train and metrolink though?

Because it's not necessary, and because the CLC is too tightly timed to add another stop until it is electrified (when the higher acceleration of EMUs will gain a bit of time back), and because Castlefield and the CLC have no paths free for additional services.

I think we need to get past the idea of reopening the old station in it's old form, I simply can't see THAT happening. But what I can see being useful is opening a station in a similar location using the same chord which could be more useful than the old one, and just because there's now a tram doesn't mean that the railway can automatically be done way with, that sounds like something 60 years out of date. Luckily the trams aren't CAF ones anyway....

A new station at Cornbrook for interchange would be far more useful. Again, just how many Scouse MUFC fans do you think there are?

 

[Purple Orange]

Close it. The ground is very well connected with Metrolink and could be better connected as it expands.

 

[AGH]

Burnham has plans - https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...eater-manchester-transport-plan-2025-15641201

White City and Cornbrook both mentioned

 

[Grimsby town]

Most MUFC fans will not be going to a match for the first time. For those who are, rocking up wearing their replica kit and following/asking others also wearing it is very likely to result in them being directed the right way.



Because it's not necessary, and because the CLC is too tightly timed to add another stop until it is electrified (when the higher acceleration of EMUs will gain a bit of time back), and because Castlefield and the CLC have no paths free for additional services.



A new station at Cornbrook for interchange would be far more useful. Again, just how many Scouse MUFC fans do you think there are?

Cornbrook is both on an embankment and pretty pushed up against the tram line. I'm sure you can fit the platforms in but it's likely to lead to a narrow platform with little facilities. That wouldn't be so much on an issue if you built an indoor waiting area near on the nearby derelict land but again you are adding to the cost. You'd probably have to have an expensive lift / stairs system at either Cornbrook or Pomona.

Theres more available land near Ponoma, on a straight and flat part of the railway. There's chance that you'd get a million or something from United and it serves the main passenger flow of Salford Quays better than Cornbrook. I really don't care which is built but I suspect Pomona / Whitecity might have the better business case.

 

[py_megapixel]

I explained that it was the Liverpool - Crewe service.

What, the one with calls almost everywhere and which leaves Manchester on the wrong line?

At Crewe, right, they get off their service from wherever, right, and then get onto a direct service to Old Trafford. Right?

But you're suggesting that this "direct" service be the one that goes round the long way (via the Airport rather than via Stockport) and stops every few minutes. I don't get it.

The Castlefield upgrade, like I have.

You seem to be ignoring @Spartacus's suggestion of having a multi-pronged approach, simply to stick to your idea of Metrolink is the best answer to everything.

We don't know if or when that's happening, or what form it will take.

If Piccadilly gets extra platforms and the Corridor can cope with the trains, then I see no reason a station shouldn't be there, but as Spartacus said, it would take a considerably different form to today.

And as for your final comment, I can think Metrolink is the best answer to this specific case without it being the best answer to everything. I could equally argue, based on your outlook in this thread and a couple of others about further Metrolink expansion, that you have an unfounded hatred for Metrolink

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cornbrook is both on an embankment and pretty pushed up against the tram line. I'm sure you can fit the platforms in but it's likely to lead to a narrow platform with little facilities. That wouldn't be so much on an issue if you built an indoor waiting area near on the nearby derelict land but again you are adding to the cost. You'd probably have to have an expensive lift / stairs system at either Cornbrook or Pomona.

Theres more available land near Ponoma, on a straight and flat part of the railway. There's chance that you'd get a million or something from United and it serves the main passenger flow of Salford Quays better than Cornbrook. I really don't care which is built but I suspect Pomona / Whitecity might have the better business case.

Pomona is arguably worse unless you're going to relocate or modify the canal - the Manchester-bound platform would be very narrow indeed.

Putting it too far from the tramstop would be undesirable as it would then be poor for interchange, and it will never really be used for traffic from Manchester is more frequent than the CLC will ever be.

And I'm just not sure that you will get much demand from the CLC towards MUFC (not many fans in Liverpool) nor towards White City, which sounds quite fancy but is just an out of town retail park near the stadium. Whereas there will be both commuter and leisure demand to Salford Quays, reachable by changing onto an Eccles line tram.

 

[LOL The Irony]

What, the one with calls almost everywhere and which leaves Manchester on the wrong line?

If it gets sent back into Piccadilly, why not use it on matchdays?

But you're suggesting that this "direct" service be the one that goes round the long way (via the Airport rather than via Stockport) and stops every few minutes. I don't get it.

Since I have to paint it in black and white, it'll go from Crewe to MUFC, therefor, a direct, through, whatever you want to call it, service. If you advertise it as going to x, and people want to go to x, they'll use it.

We don't know if or when that's happening, or what form it will take.

This is the speculative ideas area, so why not speculate and use that speculation to inform decisions on what to do with the halt?

If Piccadilly gets extra platforms and the Corridor can cope with the trains, then I see no reason a station shouldn't be there, but as Spartacus said, it would take a considerably different form to today.

And as for your final comment, I can think Metrolink is the best answer to this specific case without it being the best answer to everything. I could equally argue, based on your outlook in this thread and a couple of others about further Metrolink expansion, that you have an unfounded hatred for Metrolink

Then why didn't you just reply to Spartacus in the first place, instead of looking like you have it in for heavy rail in Greater Manchester? Also, if you have seen my full postings, you'll see I don't have any hatred of Metrolink and have actually suggested areas it could expand into. In fact, you have seen them.

 

[py_megapixel]

Since I have to paint it in black and white, it'll go from Crewe to MUFC, therefor, a direct, through, whatever you want to call it, service. If you advertise it as going to x, and people want to go to x, they'll use it.

No, it will not go from Crewe to MUFC, because MUFC is on the wrong line! And even if it did, while people may use it, it seems silly to encourage people to sit on the little 3-car stopper when it would be faster and a better use of capacity for them to get a Pendolino to Manchester and change to Metrolink (or to another heavy rail service).

This is the speculative ideas area, so why not speculate and use that speculation to inform decisions on what to do with the halt?

Well, imagining CLC electrification and sufficient infrastructure upgrades, I would like to see a 2tph all-stations stopper on the line. If that happens then I can see some benefit in an Old Trafford station built to serve the area - but I would want it to be on the normal service pattern and thus served every day, so I wouldn't want it as part of the stadium complex with no good connection to the outside world. (That's not to say it wouldn't be a good idea to insist on the club paying for it though)

On match days it would benefit from extra crowd-buster services, possibly extending down to Crewe or up to Warrington for WCML connectivity - but those would not be all-stoppers; maybe formed of triple 323s and only stopping at the stations that can take a train of that length.

 

[cle]

The CLC line should be a high frequency metro. That can't work on the Manchester side due to no capacity to terminate/thread more trains. If Met was agnostic with NR, maybe a station with new platforms/bays at Coprnbrook could provide 2-34ph extras to Liverpool, and feed people onto the Met. That would happen in Japan or Switzerland. But that won't happen here.

So the only way that works is truncating it at Warrington Central. Merseyrail and Met, 4tph and 5tph respectively - as per their patterns. Will be some near misses on cross-route connections but I doubt there will be that many. Widnes-Manc and Birchwood-Liv lose out, but will survive. WBQ will have enhanced Victoria services at a faster clip. Liverpool services are slower but more frequent.

But I digress. @Bletchleyite i agree with you a lot, but the schtick about London supporters doesn't actually translate to season ticket holders - most of whom are in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. Most further flung MUFC supporters never see a home game in their lives. Euston will be more awash with away fans, in reality.

 

[Mikey C]

More seriously though there's far lass ambiguity around getting the train there, you know what you catching, where it's going, and that you don't need to change. For anyone not familiar with the area that can be the difference between going by public transport and driving, messing about with multiple mode interchanges puts the average passenger off. Plus rail's quicker. It also provides the potential to keep away fans segregated into and out of the ground, and away from Manchester, without potential conflict points.

But nobody is just going from Piccadilly to Man U. They'll have changed at Piccadilly from another train, or elsewhere from one Metro Line to another, or will have been in the centre of Manchester for a drink/meal etc or doing so after the game.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I digress. @Bletchleyite i agree with you a lot, but the schtick about London supporters doesn't actually translate to season ticket holders - most of whom are in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. Most further flung MUFC supporters never see a home game in their lives. Euston will be more awash with away fans, in reality.

It was to be fair a bit of a joke. The real point was that there's no obvious place to run direct through services from, because fans will be quite distributed. Thus, changing to the tram (be that the existing two stations or a new third one on a Metrolinked CLC) is not a problem.

 

[6Gman]

If it gets sent back into Piccadilly, why not use it on matchdays?

Since I have to paint it in black and white, it'll go from Crewe to MUFC, therefor, a direct, through, whatever you want to call it, service. If you advertise it as going to x, and people want to go to x, they'll use it.

1. Because it adds a further service through the Castlefield Corridor.
2. Because it will probably break the diagram, unless you're suggesting the Crewe-Manchester diagrams should have a long layover simply because on c.30 days out of 363 it will shuttle to MUFC.
3. Because - if it proves as popular as you suggest - the unit appropriate for the Crewe-Piccadilly leg will be inadequate for the Picc-MUFC leg.

 

[Purple Orange]

The CLC line should be a high frequency metro. That can't work on the Manchester side due to no capacity to terminate/thread more trains. If Met was agnostic with NR, maybe a station with new platforms/bays at Coprnbrook could provide 2-34ph extras to Liverpool, and feed people onto the Met. That would happen in Japan or Switzerland. But that won't happen here.

So the only way that works is truncating it at Warrington Central. Merseyrail and Met, 4tph and 5tph respectively - as per their patterns. Will be some near misses on cross-route connections but I doubt there will be that many. Widnes-Manc and Birchwood-Liv lose out, but will survive. WBQ will have enhanced Victoria services at a faster clip. Liverpool services are slower but more frequent.

Yes, the CLC should be a high frequency metro! And yes it boils down to capacity through Manchester and the inability to terminate enough trains in the centre from the Chat Moss and Bolton lines. I just wish the rail industry would bite the bullet, stop saying “yes“ to every town’s demands to be connected to the airport & castlefield and take the brave decision to dedicate Castlefield to the CLC and Styal lines.

 

[Kite159]

Yes, the CLC should be a high frequency metro! And yes it boils down to capacity through Manchester and the inability to terminate enough trains in the centre from the Chat Moss and Bolton lines. I just wish the rail industry would bite the bullet, stop saying “yes“ to every town’s demands to be connected to the airport & castlefield and take the brave decision to dedicate Castlefield to the CLC and Styal lines.

CLC could be a high frequency metro, every 15 minutes. Rebuild Oxford Road so they all use platform 3 rather than the bay platform. Some of the smaller stations which currently have a 2 hourly service could be given a half hourly service as a test to see if usage will improve if given a better service.

Just terminate the EMR trains in the main shed at Piccadilly, they normally have a high turnover of passengers so will do wonders for the timetable on Castlefield. With no "Stopper having to follow semi-fast" the timetable will be better due to the semi-fasts having hopeless time keeping.

 

[py_megapixel]

CLC could be a high frequency metro, every 15 minutes. Rebuild Oxford Road so they all use platform 3 rather than the bay platform. Some of the smaller stations which currently have a 2 hourly service could be given a half hourly service as a test to see if usage will improve if given a better service.

I think it would need more than that. The CLC local stations in Greater Manchester are very barren and poorly cared-for. At a minimum I'd say they'll need a lick of paint, plenty of furniture such as notice boards, benches and a decent sized waiting shelter on each platform, and passenger information screens.

 

[Bletchleyite]

CLC could be a high frequency metro, every 15 minutes. Rebuild Oxford Road so they all use platform 3 rather than the bay platform. Some of the smaller stations which currently have a 2 hourly service could be given a half hourly service as a test to see if usage will improve if given a better service.

Just terminate the EMR trains in the main shed at Piccadilly, they normally have a high turnover of passengers so will do wonders for the timetable on Castlefield. With no "Stopper having to follow semi-fast" the timetable will be better due to the semi-fasts having hopeless time keeping.

I'd go with that (and the Cleethorpes TPE), and have 4tph on the CLC thus:

2tph Lime St, South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington W, all stations to Manchester Airport.
2tph all stations to Warrington C, Birchwood, Irlam, Urmston, Deansgate, Manchester Oxford Road (terminates).

All services formed of Class 195 for the acceleration (single 3-car or double 2-car), then 331 (3/4) once wired.

You could swap which go to the Airport, but I think that way round makes most sense because it gives important Merseyside stations plus all the GM ones access to Picc and the Airport.

 

[cle]

2tph is not a high frequency metro! You'd want 4tph at all stations at least - as throughout Merseyside. Liverpool-Sheffield/Notts might need to be something via Victoria, and make the whole route local / semi, but no fasts. Maybe 2tph overlaid with a faster pattern to the airport, and 4tph to Oxford Road - with a new Cornbrook station too.

Otherwise, Met/Mersey it and split it. But it's underutilized otherwise with just 4tph along the route - and certain stations with hourly service.

 

[Purple Orange]

2tph is not a high frequency metro! You'd want 4tph at all stations at least - as throughout Merseyside. Liverpool-Sheffield/Notts might need to be something via Victoria, and make the whole route local / semi, but no fasts. Maybe 2tph overlaid with a faster pattern to the airport, and 4tph to Oxford Road - with a new Cornbrook station too.

Otherwise, Met/Mersey it and split it. But it's underutilized otherwise with just 4tph along the route - and certain stations with hourly service.

Could it ever be possible for there to be 4 tph Lime Street - Manchester Airport (all stop) and 2 tph semi-fast Lime Street - Piccadilly - Sheffield - onwards?

I appreciate that Piccadilly P13 & P14 has been knocked down to 10 tph, but that isn’t intended to be the maximum in the long term. If 6 tph are to be coming from the CLC (and the infrastructure from the Manchester Rail Blueprint is delivered), what other services from Victoria, Bolton and the Chat Moss be prioritised to serve Castlefield?

 

[cle]

Could it ever be possible for there to be 4 tph Lime Street - Manchester Airport (all stop) and 2 tph semi-fast Lime Street - Piccadilly - Sheffield - onwards?

I appreciate that Piccadilly P13 & P14 has been knocked down to 10 tph, but that isn’t intended to be the maximum in the long term. If 6 tph are to be coming from the CLC (and the infrastructure from the Manchester Rail Blueprint is delivered), what other services from Victoria, Bolton and the Chat Moss be prioritised to serve Castlefield?

If it was 4tph I would expect to see 2 x Blackpool, 1 x Cumbria and 1 x Scotland. TPE can come back via Ordsall once Castlefield is improved. Chat Moss, i.e. North Wales - should be via Victoria.

 

[Purple Orange]

If it was 4tph I would expect to see 2 x Blackpool, 1 x Cumbria and 1 x Scotland. TPE can come back via Ordsall once Castlefield is improved. Chat Moss, i.e. North Wales - should be via Victoria.

Could make sense. Is it meant to be that Piccadilly P13 & P14 should be able to take 14 tph in the long term?

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think 2tph slow and 2tph fast is really a reasonable pattern for the CLC.

It's not the premier route between Manchester and Liverpool - that is the route via Newton Le Willows and will be until NPR is built. People wanting to travel between Manchester and Liverpool can just be directed to the electric northern route if they don't want to sit on a stopper. And passengers from Warrington can take the train out of Bank Quay for Manchester.

Just have a 4tph stopper and be done with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think 2tph slow and 2tph fast is really a reasonable pattern for the CLC.

It's not the premier route between Manchester and Liverpool - that is the route via Newton Le Willows and will be until NPR is built. People wanting to travel between Manchester and Liverpool can just be directed to the electric northern route if they don't want to sit on a stopper. And passengers from Warrington can take the train out of Bank Quay for Manchester.

Just have a 4tph stopper and be done with it.

I think that might be OK once electrified, but a DMU service would be way too slow and quite disadvantageous to those living near the middle of the line. At a minimum you'd need to use 195s. You could also question the point of giving Glazebrook (in the middle of a field) 4tph, but then it's not that different from Capenhurst and you could build an eco-town centring on it to make good use of it, as well as a quality foot and cycle facility connecting it to west Cadishead. Or indeed just close it.

However, what absolutely must never, ever happen is Merseyrail going anywhere near Castlefield. It will destroy the punctuality of the entire Northern Line. If Merseyrail does go onto it it must not go past Warrington or at a push Birchwood. But if you did run 4tph Lime St to Oxford Road via Warrington, that would probably justify truncating the Northern Line to terminate at South Parkway, which would improve, not damage, punctuality. Other option would be to keep it and extend to Gateacre.