• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,923
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.

Myself I would favour split at Warrington Central with tram trains on the eastern half, as I've stated many times.

But playing Devil's Advocate - how about a dedicated platform on one the viaducts immediately west of Deansgate station, so that the Merseyrail train gets into Central Manchester but is operationally still isolated from the rest of the railways in Manchester?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,345
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Myself I would favour split at Warrington Central with tram trains on the eastern half, as I've stated many times.

But playing Devil's Advocate - how about a dedicated platform on one the viaducts immediately west of Deansgate station, so that the Merseyrail train gets into Central Manchester but is operationally still isolated from the rest of the railways in Manchester?

Weak connectivity benefits, I'd say.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
15,106
But playing Devil's Advocate - how about a dedicated platform on one the viaducts immediately west of Deansgate station, so that the Merseyrail train gets into Central Manchester but is operationally still isolated from the rest of the railways in Manchester?

Got me wondering. The old viaduct on the far left of the Metrolink/NR tracks, when travelling inbound into Manchester (on the section between Cornbrook and the former Manchester Central station), looks to be in an extremely neglected condition, and certainly doesn't look like it's had a coat of paint in the last half-century.

Is that the one you mean?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,923
Got me wondering. The old viaduct on the far left of the Metrolink/NR tracks, when travelling inbound into Manchester (on the section between Cornbrook and Manchester Central), looks to be in an extremely neglected condition, and certainly doesn't look like it's had a coat of paint in the last half-century.

Is that the one you mean?

Well it would likely have to be pulled down and rebuilt for use - but ultimately it can't just be left there until it collapses so the dismantling will be required at some stage!

So you could use that area, or you could just single the existing line since only a handful of freight trains would use it and have one platform, with the platform surface on the area used by the second track.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
Does anyone here keep up to date development with news outside that of the rail industry? ;)

That viaduct is being put to good use.
 

Winthorpe

Member
Joined
18 May 2019
Messages
298
Location
UK
Got me wondering. The old viaduct on the far left of the Metrolink/NR tracks, when travelling inbound into Manchester (on the section between Cornbrook and the former Manchester Central station), looks to be in an extremely neglected condition, and certainly doesn't look like it's had a coat of paint in the last half-century.

Well it would likely have to be pulled down and rebuilt for use - but ultimately it can't just be left there until it collapses so the dismantling will be required at some stage!

The viaduct you mention is being converted into a pedestrian 'sky park':

Manchester viaduct to become an urban ‘sky park’ (from The Guardian)

Manchester viaduct to become an urban ‘sky park’​

National Trust says £1.8m Castlefield project will bring green space to the city centre

Helen Pidd North of England editor

Mon 7 Mar 2022 18.31 GMT

A disused Manchester viaduct will transform into an urban “sky park” this summer, providing much needed green space to one of Britain’s least verdant city centres.

The National Trust has begun transforming half of the 330-metre long, 56-arch Castlefield Viaduct into a temporary park that is due to open in July and has been compared to New York’s High Line.

The park will be planted with trees and shrubs, including Manchester poplars, one of the few species hardy enough to survive the pollution of the Industrial Revolution. The herb comfrey will also be cultivated, once used by mill workers to soothe feet sore from hard days in clogs, as well as the cotton flower, Manchester’s county bloom.

There will be raised beds and places to sit, as well as a covered pavilion to provide shelter for those Manchester rainy days, where visitors will be invited to meditate.

Though access will initially be limited to 100 free tickets a day, the National Trust hopes the yearlong project will lead to a permanent public space that will eventually expand and be open to all.

Duncan Laird, head of urban places at the trust, said the scheme could eventually incorporate a traffic-free walking and cycling route between Deansgate and Cornbrook over a mile away – currently a hairy journey by bike or on foot.

For 53 years, Castlefield Viaduct has stood dormant and overgrown, tantalisingly visible to passengers on passing trams and trains but infuriatingly out of bounds to everyone other than the most intrepid graffiti artists.


The Grade II-listed structure was built in 1892 after a period of “railway mania”, in which commercial speculation and competition for routes led to the rapid construction of lines and expansion of the railway network.

By 1939, the bridge carried 11 million passengers and 85 million tonnes of goods a year from Chester and Liverpool to Manchester. The line shut in 1969 with the closure of Manchester Central station, now home to party political conferences, with trains diverted instead to Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations.

Hilary McGrady, director-general of the National Trust, said Covid had highlighted the importance of urban green space. “The pandemic showed us the importance of our local parks and gardens, but it also highlighted significant inequalities in access to green space in urban areas like Manchester,” she said.

“By working with others, we aim to increase access to parks and green spaces in, around and near urban areas, so eventually everyone is in easy reach of quiet places for reflection with wide open skies.”

The trust has raised two-thirds of the £1.8m project cost via public donations and the People’s Postcode Lottery, and will be fundraising for the rest.

The Castlefield Sky Park is part of a renaissance of Manchester’s old railway lines. Several nearby railway arches will soon be turned into Embassy Village, a purpose-built facility for homeless people, while others have become home to breweries and other small businesses.

The rapidly expanding city is notably short of green space, although another urban park, Mayfield, which includes a giant slide, is due to open next year next to Piccadilly.

New York’s 2.3km High Line, completed in 2014, kickstarted a global trend for turning disused railway lines into parks. But while “doing a High Line” has become lazy shorthand for fashioning anything vaguely parklike out of an urban space, the Castlefield Sky Park does follow a similar blueprint, being both high up and on a railway line.

A similar project is in the planning stages in Camden, north London. The Camden High Line will be 1.2km long, about 8 metres above ground, and connect Camden Gardens in the west to York Way in the east.
 
Last edited:

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,734
I actually support this one, unlike the travesty at Camden Road.

Merseyrail to Cornbrook 4tph, and terminate? With a free onward tram ride included. Rail onward closed except for freight.. Would free up some good paths for Castlefield to Lancs and yes to Yorks, I suppose.

But in seriousness, I support the Warrington split. With at least Merseyrail on the western side, and NR/Met on the other. I prefer Met but freight may be needed, so a 'tramtrain' approach might be more flexible - and still enable tram passenger running, if that direction is chosen.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,864
Gatting back to the main topic. if MUFC ground is to be rebuild, I suggest somewhere like the Scilly Isles or Outer Hebrides. That would solve a lot of the traffic problems in the Old Trafford area.

Personally, I think that converting the CLC route to Metrolink would be a crazy idea. Warrington Central to Manchester is far too long for a Metro line; the journey time would be too long, and west of Irlam. the population density until the edge of Warrington is too low to attract a successful tram route.

Warrington Central is much more convenient than Bank Quay for both the town centre & bus station, and the car park at Bank Quay suffers from WCML (Avanti / ex-Virgin) parking charges (i.e. usually extortionate). Also, Bank Quay to Manchester is around 10 minutes slower than the route from Central. And can the Chat Moss route accept many additional trains?

To me, the only sensible idea would be to reintroduce the separation of the CLC stopping services on either side of Warrington. A lot of the pathing problems seemed to start when most CLC stopping trains started to run throughout between Liverpool & Manchester. Prior to that, there was no need to cut some stops to every 2 hours.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
Gatting back to the main topic. if MUFC ground is to be rebuild, I suggest somewhere like the Scilly Isles or Outer Hebrides. That would solve a lot of the traffic problems in the Old Trafford area.

Personally, I think that converting the CLC route to Metrolink would be a crazy idea. Warrington Central to Manchester is far too long for a Metro line; the journey time would be too long, and west of Irlam. the population density until the edge of Warrington is too low to attract a successful tram route.

Warrington Central is much more convenient than Bank Quay for both the town centre & bus station, and the car park at Bank Quay suffers from WCML (Avanti / ex-Virgin) parking charges (i.e. usually extortionate). Also, Bank Quay to Manchester is around 10 minutes slower than the route from Central. And can the Chat Moss route accept many additional trains?

To me, the only sensible idea would be to reintroduce the separation of the CLC stopping services on either side of Warrington. A lot of the pathing problems seemed to start when most CLC stopping trains started to run throughout between Liverpool & Manchester. Prior to that, there was no need to cut some stops to every 2 hours.

What is the difference between a stopping service using a heavy rail train and a stopping service with a tram-train?

While we are on, shall we try to iron something out with regards to tram-trains on the CLC? A conversion of the CLC between Warrington & Manchester is predicted on an underground tunnel being built, which at the eastern end would link up to Piccadilly and likely to the lines going to Glossop & Rose Hill. So far this line consists of heavy rail routes connected by an underground tunnel.

At the western end, the tunnel could also connect to the Altrincham line, a former heavy rail line. It could also connect to the East Didsbury line, also a former heavy rail line. At this point, there is still no need for a tram-trains going through the tunnel.

So where do Tram-trains come in to the equation? Tram-trains are meant for running on track that is shared with trains. Therefore I would see the need for Tram-trains to run on the Airport line, as it shares track with the Altrincham & East Didsbury lines but would continue on to the street running lines through the centre of Manchester.

Therefore if the CLC is converted to Metrolink west of Warrington, I would predict that no tram-trains will be running on that line at all. Instead they might be metro trains that run through to Glossop & Rose Hill.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,734
Modern trams run at 60mph or more (plenty for the stopping route and even west of Irlam) and offer a much better ride quality than stock on this line has offered the local stations in years. Would be a huge improvement.

WBQ to Victoria non-stop is about 25 mins, on the Leeds services. 29-30m with two stops. We'd need more/longer, but that's comparable to Oxford Road.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,280
If retention / reopening of station was made a condition of increasing stadium capacity then would it be better to move the station to the otherside of Sir Matt Busby Way? It would require a bit engineering and reconfiguration of track but there is space for three tracks and a platform. A station underneath a new South Stand would have significant issues.

Edit: I might be bias as a Liverpool fan but it would be really odd for planning permission to be granted for additional seats without extra public transport capacity being paid for. There are strict limits on capacity of most stadiums in the UK. Its not just commercial reasons that mean Anfield is only being extended to 61,000 seats. The club was told that there was a strict limit of 60,000 for several years due to the local transport infrastructure (or lack of). They managed to push the cap a little but not much. Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham will all soon have stadiums with capacity of just over 60,000. All three clubs could fill larger stadiums for all but the most boring cup matches. If you don't have an L post code getting hold of Liverpool tickets for Premier League or European matches is a nightmare. Manchester City have (or had) planning permission to extend to circa 60,000 seats. Its a big ask for Manchester United to want to increase from 73,500 to 80,000 or more. Match day access for 6500 or more additional fans will be heavily scrutinised.
 
Last edited:

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,666
If retention / reopening of station was made a condition of increasing stadium capacity then would it be better to move the station to the otherside of Sir Matt Busby Way? It would require a bit engineering and reconfiguration of track but there is space for three tracks and a platform. A station underneath a new South Stand would have significant issues.

Edit: I might be bias as a Liverpool fan but it would be really odd for planning permission to be granted for additional seats without extra public transport capacity being paid for. There are strict limits on capacity of most stadiums in the UK. Its not just commercial reasons that mean Anfield is only being extended to 61,000 seats. The club was told that there was a strict limit of 60,000 for several years due to the local transport infrastructure (or lack of). They managed to push the cap a little but not much. Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham will all soon have stadiums with capacity of just over 60,000. All three clubs could fill larger stadiums for all but the most boring cup matches. If you don't have an L post code getting hold of Liverpool tickets for Premier League or European matches is a nightmare. Manchester City have (or had) planning permission to extend to circa 60,000 seats. Its a big ask for Manchester United to want to increase from 73,500 to 80,000 or more. Match day access for 6500 or more additional fans will be heavily scrutinised.

Though bear in mind that the current capacity is reduced from the peak. The last expansion raised capacity to 76,212, however reconfigurations since have dropped that to the current 74,140. The club will have had to make provision for handling crowds of 76,000 so it's not quite as large an increase to go for 80,000.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,650
Location
Yorkshire
We've got away from the topic of MUFC station now, but this idea of splitting stoppers at Warrington and handing them over to the respective "local" system for the respective cities seems like a bit of a crayonista solution. Merseyrail would be fine extending to Warrington and picking up the local stops, but Metrolink is a tram system not suitable for such a long journey. The current M5000 trams certainly do not "ride better than the current CLC stock" at anything like a reasonable speed. Yes, the 195s are bit lively but the M5000s are awful on the faster stretches of the Bury line. Would tram-train vehicles be better? Would they be suitable for the longer journeys out to Warrington? Would toilets be provided?

Warrington Central is a bit like Huddersfield, being a fairly large town between two major cities. However Huddersfield Station is much more flexible compared to Warrington's basic 2-platform through station. Splitting the stoppers there would be a good idea, but it needs to be heavy-rail to both Liverpool and Manchester, with bay platforms provided for both to turn back away from the through lines. If Manchester had gained a Merseyrail type suburban system it would probably have already happened. Tram trains would be a square peg in a round hole.
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
In some ways, the ideal would be to extend Merseyrail into its own underground terminal in Manchester. This would be similar to what's planned with the San Francisco BART, which is being extended to San José; which, like Manchester, is a slightly larger if less interesting city around 30 miles or so away.

The difference though is that the BART has 8tph on that branch. I doubt if the CLC would be higher than 4tph, which probably wouldn't justify a subway.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,564
Location
Bristol
Can the mods split the 'What to do with the CLC line' into a separate thread? I'm guessing there's been 1 or 2 already...

I've got no idea where the drift started though, apologies!
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,650
Location
Yorkshire
Metrolink's original two lines are a suburban Merseyrail type system, they just have a bit of street running between them instead of a tunnel.
But the vehicles are most definitely trams, and the current network is round about the limit of what such vehicles would be suitable for in terms of journey time. If only the Picc-Vic tunnel had happened instead of Metrolink. If Metrolink didn't exist nobody would be suggesting tram-trains to Warrington.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
10,984
Location
here to eternity
Can we get back to discussing Manchester United Halt please.

For discussion on the CLC please use other threads or create a new one.

thanks

 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Gatting back to the main topic. if MUFC ground is to be rebuild, I suggest somewhere like the Scilly Isles or Outer Hebrides. That would solve a lot of the traffic problems in the Old Trafford area.
A better way of reducing traffic in the area would be to use the rebuilding as an opportunity to reopen the station and then encourage use of public transport. Maybe have reduced fares for holders of a match day ticket to encourage this.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,564
Location
Bristol
A better way of reducing traffic in the area would be to use the rebuilding as an opportunity to reopen the station and then encourage use of public transport. Maybe have reduced fares for holders of a match day ticket to encourage this.
How much of the traffic in the area originates there and is heading for places the railway serves? People aren't going to get a train just because it's there - the train needs to fulfil their journey.
 

AntoniC

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2011
Messages
911
Location
Southport
Wouldn`t it be better for Old Trafford to be moved closer to a railway line that has direct links to London, so fans won`t have to much trouble getting to the stadium to/from London ?.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
How much of the traffic in the area originates there and is heading for places the railway serves? People aren't going to get a train just because it's there - the train needs to fulfil their journey.
Well that is why the club should be proactive and see where their fans are coming from, to best inform the relevant authorities of how to get fans out of their cars.
Wouldn`t it be better for Old Trafford to be moved closer to a railway line that has direct links to London, so fans won`t have to much trouble getting to the stadium to/from London ?.
It's already right next to the line, so moving the stadium away from the tracks will allow the station to be expanded and enable it to safely handle the crowds.

EDIT: Re-read what you said. I should make my phone screen brighter :lol:. The problem with moving it next to a line to London is where's the available land within Manchester? Plus, United already own the land they're on, so why not use that and improve the current transport provisions?
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,564
Location
Bristol
Wouldn`t it be better for Old Trafford to be moved closer to a railway line that has direct links to London, so fans won`t have to much trouble getting to the stadium to/from London ?.
FWIW, trains between Liverpool and London are just as busy on Anfield Matchdays as trains between Manchester and London are on Old Trafford matchdays.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,862
A better way of reducing traffic in the area would be to use the rebuilding as an opportunity to reopen the station and then encourage use of public transport. Maybe have reduced fares for holders of a match day ticket to encourage this.
So offering discounted fares for traffic which requires the timetable and accompanying unit and traincrew diagrams to be chewed up on around 35 occasions each year (which may be a Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday evening; various times on a Saturday; or a Sunday afternoon) ?
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
So offering discounted fares for traffic which requires the timetable and accompanying unit and traincrew diagrams to be chewed up on around 35 occasions each year (which may be a Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday evening; various times on a Saturday; or a Sunday afternoon) ?
Well the subsidy to cover this could come from United, TfGM or both. I mean, TfGM just spent a lot of money sending trams past the stadium, so any excuse to get more ridership...
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
5,286
So offering discounted fares for traffic which requires the timetable and accompanying unit and traincrew diagrams to be chewed up on around 35 occasions each year (which may be a Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday evening; various times on a Saturday; or a Sunday afternoon) ?
You forgot Monday and Thursday evenings.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,345
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well the subsidy to cover this could come from United, TfGM or both. I mean, TfGM just spent a lot of money sending trams past the stadium, so any excuse to get more ridership...

You speak as if people taking the tram to the football is a bad idea.

Here's a big clue - no, it isn't, it is a very good thing indeed. And there are two stations to choose from to split the load. One very near the stadium and one a little further away near the cricket ground.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,458
Location
The North
I am surprised this debate is still going on. Getting the train to Old Trafford on a match day is just not an obvious choice. The tram network is too ubiquitous and too convenient. Heavy rail just doesn’t compete here.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
15,106
Here's a big clue - no, it isn't, it is a very good thing indeed. And there are two stations to choose from to split the load. One very near the stadium and one a little further away near the cricket ground.
More than that, isn't it? Can alight/board at Old Trafford tram station for trams on the Altrincham line.

For trams on the East Didsbury and Manchester Airport lines, one can alight/board at Trafford Bar and not far to walk.

For trams on the Media City/Eccles line, one can alight/board at Pomona or Exchange Quay.

And now that the line to the Trafford Centre is open, one can also alight/board at Wharfside, although for journeys inbound to Manchester, think that they all currently turn around at Cornbrook just now.

Problem, as ever, with Metrolink trams immediately before/after sports matches (or concerts) at either of the Old Trafford stadia, is that the trams are not very long and often tend to be somewhat "super dense crush loaded".
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
I am surprised this debate is still going on.
Because we're not all a bunch of cookie cutter drones with the same, safe opinion. Is that maybe why?
Getting the train to Old Trafford on a match day is just not an obvious choice.
The fact it was well used before being canned says otherwise.
The tram network is too ubiquitous and too convenient.
Well of course it's currently more convenient, there's no current rail link.
Heavy rail just doesn’t compete here.
Well it obviously did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top