We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[matacaster]

How about having a second two track viaduct? above the exiting two track one,like the M1 at Sheffield. New parapets to hold the upper storey would hardly need any extra land. Approaches would need extra land, but in the case of piccadilly, its probably already railway land. Not sure of situation at other end of elevated section. Could even have a couple of elevated platforms at piccadilly to take terminators from West.

 

[jonesy3001]

Shame they cannot retrack the line at Phillips park junction saves the ECS runs from reversing at guide bridge or ashburys.
Could a have pic-vic-oxford rd shuttle viathe ordsall chord, without crossing the Piccadilly throat.

 

[Class 170101]

If there is money to sort out this corridor then I suggest the first priority would be those platforms and the next would be to grade-separate Castlefield Junction, as this is where trains split out from the busy corridor so is probably most critical. There may just be space to build a flyover for the Up line from Cornbrook to rise up to the same level as Metrolink, pass right over the junction and merge back in the vicinity of an abolished Deansgate station. If this isn't possible then grade-separating Ordsall Lane would provide some degree of relief. But it would need some detailed simulation modelling to quantify the capacity and performance benefits.

Would you be able to build a flyover of sufficiently shallow graidents for Class 4 Freight Trains at 1600 tonnes trailing load from Trafford Park to be able to pass over the top?

 

[edwin_m]

Would you be able to build a flyover of sufficiently shallow graidents for Class 4 Freight Trains at 1600 tonnes trailing load from Trafford Park to be able to pass over the top?

The ascending ramp could start as far back as necessary towards Cornbrook, possibly as some kind of "viaduct on a viaduct" though this obviously depends on structural feasibility. According to the Ian Allan gradients book the route into Central, now the Metrolink, was on a gradient of 1 in 100 which should be no problem for a freight train, and visual impact would be reduced if the new structure followed the same profile. I'm not suggesting taking over the Metrolink track and moving Metrolink onto the empty structure to the north, as I understand it is in very poor condition.

The down-ramp is a bit more tricky but can be steeper as it is only used for descending. If Deansgate station is abolished then there's about 250m to get down, which is pretty tight but may be feasible with some clever engineering.

 

[lancastrian]

4 tracking of the Castlefield corridor can’t happen. I’ve never understood why people on this forum propose such a scheme. Simply put, there is more chance of a completely new line from Leeds to Manchester than there is of 4 tracking through the centre of
Manchester. With reference to having had it sorted out first, that opportunity was during the 19th century and has not reappeared since.

I don't know why people still talk abut this. Although there is space in places for the route to be widened, not for the whole of the length of it.
Part of the problem is that there are a number of trains from the Chat Moss Line and the Bolton Line that pass through this corridor hourly. The best thing is to divert those which could be diverted. I am not sure if the track bed from Droylsden though to Denton Junction is unblocked, but this would be the best route from the West/North West of Manchester to Stockport and the South via Victoria. Not only would it divert trains from Buxton & Hazel Grove to the North West of Manchester away from the Castlefield Corridor, it would also enable both Denton & Reddish South to receive a decent regular hourly service, it would give the opportunity for Droylsden to have its station reopened as well. Also if the route was electrified it would give a second electric link between North and South Manchester.

I am not sure how many services this would move from the Castlefield Corridor, but even if it is just 4 an hour, that would not only free up paths for other services to use it. A new East Manchester link route would bring benefits between Victoria and Stockport, as well as further afield.

Sits back and awaits being shot down for 'crayonistering'.

 

[CW2]

<snip>

Sits back and awaits being shot down for 'crayonistering'.

Far from it. This approach is more achievable - and in a quicker timescale - than grandiose plans to flatten bits of central Manchester. Maybe I should unwrap my crayons ...

 

[HSTEd]

I don't know why people still talk abut this. Although there is space in places for the route to be widened, not for the whole of the length of it.

Of the 1930m or so between the first flat junction at the west end of the corridor, to the east end of the Picadilly through platforms:

1. 300m is surrounded on both sides by University North Campus which is being abandoned in the near future (delayed by Coronavirus)
2. 120m is bordered on the south side only by University North Campus, which is being abandoned in the near future
3. ~700m is on larger Network Rail property - essentially the platform areas at the three main stations.
4. ~350m or so is directly adjacent to Whitworth Street west

Only the remaining 460m is not in one of the above categories, and much of that is crossing roads etc.

Excluding doomed University buildings, and buildings under the control of the railway, it seems that only ~12-15 buildings would have to be knocked down for a Castlefield widening to take place.
Deansgate station might have to be sacrificed but if the platforms could be cantilevered over Whitworth Street it can probably stay open.

All in all - I honestly don't see why people think its some impossible scheme.
People want to travel to Manchester and they want to use the Castlefield corridor - that is why progressively more and more trains have been routed into it.

And even if any land take at all is verboten for some reason - the engineering necessary to double deck the entire corridor is certainly plausible in an engineering sense.

Either option would be expensive, but it gives infinitely more value than almost any other suggestion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know why people still talk abut this. Although there is space in places for the route to be widened, not for the whole of the length of it.
Part of the problem is that there are a number of trains from the Chat Moss Line and the Bolton Line that pass through this corridor hourly. The best thing is to divert those which could be diverted. I am not sure if the track bed from Droylsden though to Denton Junction is unblocked, but this would be the best route from the West/North West of Manchester to Stockport and the South via Victoria. Not only would it divert trains from Buxton & Hazel Grove to the North West of Manchester away from the Castlefield Corridor, it would also enable both Denton & Reddish South to receive a decent regular hourly service, it would give the opportunity for Droylsden to have its station reopened as well. Also if the route was electrified it would give a second electric link between North and South Manchester.

I don't know about Droylsden, but there is a still open route (I believe) from Stockport via Denton and (Ashton West Curve)-Medlock Vale to Manchester Victoria. I don't know when it was last used for passenger traffic, but I've ridden it in the late 90s when Virgin diverted that way during a closure of Piccadilly.

 

[PR1Berske]

Excluding doomed University buildings, and buildings under the control of the railway, it seems that only ~12-15 buildings would have to be knocked down for a Castlefield widening to take place.
Deansgate station might have to be sacrificed but if the platforms could be cantilevered over Whitworth Street it can probably stay open.

So only 15 buildings and a sacrificed station. That's why people know that the scheme can't happen, the "all you have to do" runs into millions of pounds.

 

[HSTEd]

So only 15 buildings and a sacrificed station. That's why people know that the scheme can't happen, the "all you have to do" runs into millions of pounds.

Millions of pounds is an irrelevance.

Its chickenfeed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Deansgate will be going anyway if the Oxford Road work is done, because 160m platforms at Oxford Road will be most of the way to Deansgate anyway, so finishing the job with a travelator or walkway is easier, particularly given that hardly anybody uses it.

 

[Killingworth]

Deansgate will be going anyway if the Oxford Road work is done, because 160m platforms at Oxford Road will be most of the way to Deansgate anyway, so finishing the job with a travelator or walkway is easier, particularly given that hardly anybody uses it.

O.456m passengers in 2018/19 may be small numbers compared with the other central Manchester stations but they need a little consideration. A travelator is a good idea to consider.

 

[Purple Orange]

Deansgate will be going anyway if the Oxford Road work is done, because 160m platforms at Oxford Road will be most of the way to Deansgate anyway, so finishing the job with a travelator or walkway is easier, particularly given that hardly anybody uses it.

I think losing deansgate station will be a mistake in the long term. Should NPR and HS2 be built, all long distance services can be removed from this part of the network. The residual network is a metro route with 5 stations in the city centre.

 

[mwmbwls]

Deansgate will be going anyway if the Oxford Road work is done, because 160m platforms at Oxford Road will be most of the way to Deansgate anyway, so finishing the job with a travelator or walkway is easier, particularly given that hardly anybody uses it.

The current conflict points

Proposed Congestion Relief Package
Castlefield4-Corridor-diagram by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
The current conflict points

Yes and no. Removing Deansgate on its own would provide symptomatic relief. Having extra platforms at Salford Crescent (to remove pressure on the congested junction at the north and south ends of the station and and two extra platforms at Salford Central to provide walking distance access to the Deansgate, Castlefields, New Bailey redevelopments would round out the package..

The aerial pathway,running above the road and adjacent to the railway could possibly modelled on the New York Highline, should be linked to the proposed Viadux development of the tramstop.

castlefield3 by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

deansgate Viadux staircase by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
deansgate castlefield proposed development by Mwmbwls, on Flickr
The key problem with organising a disparate stakeholder group to achieve this is, however, akin to teaching elephants to line dance.

 

[Senex]

I don't know about Droylsden, but there is a still open route (I believe) from Stockport via Denton and (Ashton West Curve)-Medlock Vale to Manchester Victoria. I don't know when it was last used for passenger traffic, but I've ridden it in the late 90s when Virgin diverted that way during a closure of Piccadilly.

Yes, that route is certainly there, and it has just had a major improvement to its junction with the Stalybridge line. However, it is a very slow route with very little scope for improvement. Although when it was still there the route via Denton and Droylesden was not a fast one, it was about a mile shorter and on an alignment that would have allowed significant improvement. Surely given the sort of service that 'lancastrian' (#245) would like to see, a much better route would be needed if it went back in than was there when it came out. I have myself suggested several times in these forums that this route should be restored (even at the cost of some property acquisition after land has been very foolishly sold) to provide a reasonably fast route between Stockport and Victoria. If it could go back in, much better junctions would be needed at Heaton Norris, Denton, Ashton Moss [not North], and Droylesden—Miles Platting being already to be done under TPU. It would be expensive, but a fraction of the cost of quadrupling the South Junction line.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, that route is certainly there, and it has just had a major improvement to its junction with the Stalybridge line. However, it is a very slow route with very little scope for improvement. Although when it was still there the route via Denton and Droylesden was not a fast one, it was about a mile shorter and on an alignment that would have allowed significant improvement. Surely given the sort of service that 'lancastrian' (#245) would like to see, a much better route would be needed if it went back in than was there when it came out. I have myself suggested several times in these forums that this route should be restored (even at the cost of some property acquisition after land has been very foolishly sold) to provide a reasonably fast route between Stockport and Victoria. If it could go back in, much better junctions would be needed at Heaton Norris, Denton, Ashton Moss [not North], and Droylesden—Miles Platting being already to be done under TPU. It would be expensive, but a fraction of the cost of quadrupling the South Junction line.

The problem with that is capacity at Stockport, particularly trains towards Victoria sitting on the Down Fast waiting to make the right turn if things are out of course and there isn't a simultaneous gap on both Up lines. It's also likely to be much slower than a non-stop train into Piccadilly however much it's improved, given the extra distance and the slow junction in the middle.

 

[CW2]

Maybe the answer will involve sacrificing the call at Stockport.
For example, you could run the Liverpool - Nottingham / Norwich service via Victoria and Philips Park to Ashburys, then via Romiley towards New Mills.
That would remove a major conflict right across Piccadilly station throat once per direction per hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe the answer will involve sacrificing the call at Stockport.
For example, you could run the Liverpool - Nottingham / Norwich service via Victoria and Philips Park to Ashburys, then via Romiley towards New Mills.
That would remove a major conflict right across Piccadilly station throat once per direction per hour.

True. You could give Stockport a sort-of replacement by moving the stopper to run via Stockport, possibly as an extension of the CLC semifast services, which can't go any way other than Castlefield.

 

[CW2]

True. You could give Stockport a sort-of replacement by moving the stopper to run via Stockport, possibly as an extension of the CLC semifast services, which can't go any way other than Castlefield.

... and as a spin-off the end-to-end journey time on the Liverpool - Nottingham would be about 10 minutes faster, by taking a shorter route and only stopping at Victoria in place of Oxford Road, Piccadilly and Stockport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

... and as a spin-off the end-to-end journey time on the Liverpool - Nottingham would be about 10 minutes faster, by taking a shorter route and only stopping at Victoria in place of Oxford Road, Piccadilly and Stockport.

And giving Liverpool (a) a second through service per hour to Sheffield (a slower one, but any capacity is good), and (b) direct trains to the Peak for leisure purposes which I think would be well-used, while only causing a small number of people in east Manchester a disadvantage. I'd suggest that one train per hour via the Marple route should continue to and terminate at Chinley (either that or add a call at either Marple or New Mills C on the EMR service) so we don't lose a section of line entirely.

 

[Greybeard33]

On 23 July the Manchester Evening News ran an article by Jennifer Williams, which was based on interviews with Grant Shapps, Andy Burnham and "one senior local figure" (speaking off the record).

Has political peace broken out over northern rail projects?

As £600m is announced for the delayed Manchester to Leeds upgrade, Tory ministers and northern Labour leaders both now have an interest in getting things moving

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

This gave some hints as to the current DfT thinking on the solution to the Castlefield issue - it appears that they are still unwilling to approve Piccadilly P15/16. A few extracts:

Improvements to the Castlefield rail bottleneck could fall into the bracket of first-term investment too, although at present that has merely been given a £10m pot to draw up a plan. Shapps seemed to admit today that the result, which comes after endless reviews of previous plans, won’t necessarily include long-promised extra platforms at Piccadilly Station.

Giving Piccadilly new platforms at 15 and 16 had ‘almost become a totemic thing’ where delayed upgrades are concerned, he said, but added: “I don’t really care how we resolve this. I just want it fixed.

“I asked some good people to work out what needs to be done if we are to sort out the corridor and they proposed that £10m would help see it through. And we’ll see what they come out the other end with.”

The plan so far seems to involve re-routing some services that currently run through Piccadilly’s desperately cramped platforms 13 and 14 - including pan-northern services - through Victoria instead. Infrastructure improvements would still also be needed, including on junctions at Ordsall and Ardwick, as well as radical change to the timetable in December next year.

Leaders here remain skeptical about this, particularly given the number of previous solutions lying around in Whitehall. They still believe in a need to run longer trains through Piccadilly, for example, while one insider points out that the trains run by various operators have doors in different places, adding a basic complication to the logistics.

“If you’re not careful, you end up spending more than you would have done just doing 15 and 16,” they note.

Burnham is unsure too.

“I’m less confident about that,” he told the M.E.N. of whether the latest plan would work.

“We have frustrations that a scheme that’s been worked up over the years again is being abandoned, seemingly in favour of an alternative, which we haven’t yet details of.

“It’s my position, [Manchester council leader] Sir Richard Leese’s position, Greater Manchester’s position, that 15 and 16 should be in the scheme. They’ve got a short time from here to tell us something is better. They’ve got a short window.”

 

[LOL The Irony]

True. You could give Stockport a sort-of replacement by moving the stopper to run via Stockport, possibly as an extension of the CLC semifast services, which can't go any way other than Castlefield.

I was thinking a similar same thing, when Oxford Road is finally sorted, the Oxford Road - Lime Street service could extend to Stockport.

 

[CW2]

I was thinking a similar same thing, when Oxford Road is finally sorted, the Oxford Road - Lime Street service could extend to Stockport.

Might work if you run fast Piccadilly - Stockport, rather than getting tempted to put in intermediate calls. (It's one less set of lines to cross in Piccadilly throat).

 

[LOL The Irony]

Might work if you run fast Piccadilly - Stockport, rather than getting tempted to put in intermediate calls. (It's one less set of lines to cross in Piccadilly throat).

That's what I intended.

 

[Dspatula]

Maybe the answer will involve sacrificing the call at Stockport.
For example, you could run the Liverpool - Nottingham / Norwich service via Victoria and Philips Park to Ashburys, then via Romiley towards New Mills.
That would remove a major conflict right across Piccadilly station throat once per direction per hour.

The Nottingham Liverpool doesn't cross the station throat no regularly scheduled train has since the Liverpool Scarborough was moved.

Oxford road works have been reduced to trying to improving the platforms as they are now, any major rebuild seems to be pretty much off the table at this point.

 

[markymark2000]

Oxford road works have been reduced to trying to improving the platforms as they are now, any major rebuild seems to be pretty much off the table at this point.

Oxford Road needs a rebuild more than Picc 15/16. Picc 15/16 will do absolutely nothing unless Oxford Road is rebuilt as 2 islands (1 dedicated to westbound trains and the other dedicated to eastbound trains).

No matter how many improvements you make around the area, Oxford Road is still the issue since it has only 2 usable through platforms (P1 out of use due to lack of lift and P3 is a waste since all trains go into 4 as it's easier for passengers. Also no train can arrive in 3 while the train is signalled out of 4.

MY priority list for the works would be:
1 rebuild Oxford Road (The actual 'throat'. If Ox Rd was improved, the rest of the core could be much more reliable and delays sorted a lot quicker)
2 Rebuild Salford Crescent (A lot of path conflicts here. Having at least a 3rd platform for trains from Bolton to Victoria to pass through without conflict would be a nice boost to the reliability entering the core).
3 grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction (Some excellent, detailed plans were put on the forum in one of these Castlefields threads)

 

[mwmbwls]

Diverting Liverpool to Sheffield trains will not be without controversy

Stockport Edgeley - 18th March 2014 - 07.00 to 07.30 hours by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

The route via New Mills and Marple is IIRC used regularly by EMR for empty stock workings to maintain route knowledge in the event of diversions. During the time the service has run from Liverpool to Norwich via the Hazel Grove Chord- two significant commuter passenger flows have arisen from Stockport - to Sheffield and also to Warrington. The Stockport to Sheffield group are fairly easy to identify as they cluster on Platform Zero.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The route via New Mills and Marple is IIRC used regularly by EMR for empty stock workings to maintain route knowledge in the event of diversions. During the time the service has run from Liverpool to Norwich via the Hazel Grove Chord- two significant commuter passenger flows have arisen from Stockport - to Sheffield and also to Warrington. The Stockport to Sheffield group are fairly easy to identify as they cluster on Platform Zero.

Of course if you ran a Northern service that way as a replacement they may actually be happy. The stopper would be slower (though if they used high acceleration units like 195s not that much slower) but I'm sure commuters could be "bought" by more promise of a seat if longer units were used and less through passengers took up space.

The upside of running the CLC semifast that way is that it'd still provide for all those journeys while removing 1tphpd from Castlefield.

 

[Ianno87]

Diverting Liverpool to Sheffield trains will not be without controversy

Stockport Edgeley - 18th March 2014 - 07.00 to 07.30 hours by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

The route via New Mills and Marple is IIRC used regularly by EMR for empty stock workings to maintain route knowledge in the event of diversions. During the time the service has run from Liverpool to Norwich via the Hazel Grove Chord- two significant commuter passenger flows have arisen from Stockport - to Sheffield and also to Warrington. The Stockport to Sheffield group are fairly easy to identify as they cluster on Platform Zero.

There'd still be the Airport/Piccadilly-Cleethorpes service to keep a faster link between Stockport and Sheffield.

 

[Greybeard33]

Oxford Road needs a rebuild more than Picc 15/16. Picc 15/16 will do absolutely nothing unless Oxford Road is rebuilt as 2 islands (1 dedicated to westbound trains and the other dedicated to eastbound trains).

No matter how many improvements you make around the area, Oxford Road is still the issue since it has only 2 usable through platforms (P1 out of use due to lack of lift and P3 is a waste since all trains go into 4 as it's easier for passengers. Also no train can arrive in 3 while the train is signalled out of 4.

MY priority list for the works would be:
1 rebuild Oxford Road (The actual 'throat'. If Ox Rd was improved, the rest of the core could be much more reliable and delays sorted a lot quicker)
2 Rebuild Salford Crescent (A lot of path conflicts here. Having at least a 3rd platform for trains from Bolton to Victoria to pass through without conflict would be a nice boost to the reliability entering the core).
3 grade separation of Ordsall Lane Junction (Some excellent, detailed plans were put on the forum in one of these Castlefields threads)

I believe the proposal for Oxford Road will be to make Platform 3 a centre turnback for the CLC stoppers, to avoid the conflicts that occur when departing Platform 5 westbound. Platforms 2 and 4 will be the through platforms, with the same headways as Piccadilly P14 and P13 respectively. See last year's Network Rail Congested Infrastucture report:

C.04.02 Conflicting moves at Manchester Oxford Road

Any train that departs the bay platform here to head west is required to have a gap between both eastbound and westbound trains to depart without delaying other services (Figure 77). This is difficult to achieve due to a combination of the high service frequency and the complex interactions of all the other services. This is further compounded by the need to be immediately behind the preceding fast service to Liverpool (via the Cheshire Lines Committee (CLC) route) to prevent the next fast service catching the slow service before it reaches its destination.

Provision of a centre-turnback, that allows a non-conflicting arrival and departure would eliminate this conflict entirely. Trains would only need to be planned on headway and the opposite direction services are no longer a factor.

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Castlefield-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf