Transpennine Upgrade : Manchester/Leeds

[Mol_PMB]

Of course there are other ideas that could be considered. For example, re-arrange the CLC stopping services entirely:

West of Warrington Central it becomes part of Merseyrail, eliminating conflicts at Hunts Cross.

Between Cornbrook and Warrington Central it becomes part of Metrolink (with tram-trains) and this is extended to Warrington Bank Quay in the west to give much-improved connectivity.

From the Cornbrook area it would either connect into the existing Metrolink lines, or could form a new tram route into town along Chester Road.

There would be potential for a branch from either Flixton or Glazebrook to Partington and Carrington. Possibly also north to Leigh along the former GCR branch.

Express services Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester would run via the NPR route and WBQ low level.

Freight-wise, much could transfer to 'Port Salford' which would have links to the WCML via Newton-le-Willows.

This would remove almost all the CLC traffic from the Castlefield corridor, while retaining it as a diversionary route if needed.

 

But all this needs bigger thinking!

[woodenhead]

Once electrified, the CLC becomes a good route again, I wouldn't want to see it downgraded from Network Rail - would tram trains be 25Kv?

 

Warrington Central and the other new station west of it are good for express commuting to Manchester, Bank Quay doesn't offer that and downgrading to tram train makes everything a stopper. 

 

Flixton doesn't need Metrolink if it retains a good service - still cannot understand why with a good park and ride offering it gets less trains than Urmston (meaning I used to walk to Urmston rather than drive to Flixton).  Metrolink may reach Irlam eventually via Port Salford but I guess a long time into the future.  The big hole is the area between Sale and Partington due for massive house building over the next 20 years, just the A6144 through there at present, no way over the Ship Canal except for the toll bridge.  The old Cadishead branch, passes through the middle of the current development work, but it was mainly an avoiding line for freight traffic rather than a passenger route - none of it's junctions faced Manchester - however, as a branch off the Metrolink from Skelton Junction - that could work serving Broadheath, Stamford Brook, Partington, Cadishead and Irlam.  That would be pretty direct and it's not as though the Altrincham line doesn't have space for additional lines - it used to be four tracked so that would ease congestion on the route too without impacting Altrincham services too much.

[Mol_PMB]

In general, my thinking is along the lines of solving the Castlefield bottleneck by taking traffic out of it, while at the same time opening up new journey opportunities.

 

All the ideas have pros and cons, of course. My vision of the tram-trains would be that they would be dual voltage 25kV or 750dc overhead so they could run on existing Metrolink lines or Network Rail.

With the NPR line in place (if ever) then there would be a fast route to Manchester from WBQ low level. Other options from WBQ at present are the TfW trains to the airport via Picc and the Northern trains to Leeds via Vic.

I agree that the Sale-Carrington-Partington area desparately needs better transport. Although the junction at Glazebrook did not originally face towards Manchester, there is a huge amount of space there where the old yards were, and a chord could easily be put in. Especially with Metrolink curves, possibly also with main-line type curves if it cut into the corner of the playing fields. Linking through to Skelton Junction would be easy apart from the junction itself which also faces the wrong way, but a new chord across the industrial estate could solve that.

 

Extending Metrolink to Irlam via Port Salford is an interesting one. It could serve Barton Aerodrome, then run to the south-east of the A57 along the former MSC Railway trackbed, climb past the locks and curve over the A57 then up the former low-level trackbed (once used by CWS) to Irlam station.

 

Lots of food for thought, anyway!

[Mike Storey]

23 hours ago, woodenhead said:

I don't think I have ever seen any plans where they had the Picc-Oxford Rd four tracked, perhaps it was considered in early planning but the last set of plans I saw (when it was originally approved but not funded) was two tracks but four long platforms at both Piccadilly and Oxford Rd.  Deansgate does not see as many stoppers as it did so I am guessing it impacts less on the overall route with Piccadilly being the main pinchpoint as the route all the way from there to Ardwick is effectively three sets of 2 tracks meaning Piccadilly 13/14 is the blocking point in the whole route through from Ardwick to Deansgate.

 

Yet the latest proposals still don't appear to address this pinch point, remodelling Oxford Rd makes no difference to the number of platforms, it is four now and will still be four afterwards albeit possibly longer (depending on what they propose now).  But no mention of the additional capacity at Piccadilly unless they think it is some sort of mini Crossrail now and that semi automated trains is how they will deal with the problem.  That would be interesting on a class 66 hauled intermodal whose tail is in Oxford Rd and head is stopped at Piccadilly.

 

 

 

There were most definitely plans to four-track from Piccadilly to Oxford Road (and potentially to Deansgate) in the 1980's (originally by BR) and early 2000's (by RT, which is when I got involved), as well as add Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly. These were proposed at the same time as the Ordsall Chord. The latter went ahead (under NR), despite objections from some, but the former did not, primarily due to objections from the Uni and Greater Manchester CC, and not primarily due to cost. GM wanted a tunnel instead, to provide that extra capacity and reliability, so the need for additional trackage has been acknowledged even by them.

 

Unlike others, you have hit the nail on the head with the reasons. It is not just about improving the throughput of stopping passenger trains, but also about freight and about reliability. One of the worst problems with reliability was when trains arrived out of order at Oxford Road and had to be re-platformed at a moment's notice, to keep things moving. The time lost in transferring passengers from one platform to the other, thus still holding up the train, was horrendous, and caused almost nightly complaints from the then MD of Northern direct to me, on the phone (like I could do much about it). Imagine that scenario reversed, with dozens of late platform changes across the newly four-through-platformed Piccadilly, every night, where tens of thousands of passengers would be affected, not just a few thousand as at Oxford Road. In all our modelling, only four tracking throughout gave a significant improvement to both capacity and reliability. If that is provided some other way, as GM are proposing, then fine, if it works.

 

The Ordsall Chord meanwhile remains a white elephant, in all its architectural glory.

 

The Borough Market situation was quoted above, and has been used before. See explanations passim as to why that comparison just does not work.

 

[peanuts]

always wondered if the clc was electrified at 25kv could class 319s not take over the route and run Manchester  airport to liverpool central   and onto southport using thier  dual voltage equipment  switching at Huntscross ? or would there be gauging issues ?

 

 also whilst i worked at Glazebrook east jn there was ideas floated  to reopen glazebrook west jn to kenyon jn to allow freightliner traffic to access trafford park from the west opening up paths through the oxford road corridor do not know what came of this but remember a chap turning up at the box wanting to mooch around the area this was in the days of railtrack 

[woodenhead]

There isn’t much scope for Freightliners approaching from the west without some shenanigans in Liverpool to connect to the CLC.

 

The best route was already in existence, the Fallowfield loop, if Freightliners were routed via Ashton Moss and Bagley Fold.  However, that option went in the early 1990s, parts of the loop were buried, bits built over and finally Metrolink.

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 One of the worst problems with reliability was when trains arrived out of order at Oxford Road and had to be re-platformed at a moment's notice, to keep things moving. The time lost in transferring passengers from one platform to the other, thus still holding up the train, was horrendous, and caused almost nightly complaints from the then MD of Northern direct to me, on the phone (like I could do much about it). Imagine that scenario reversed, with dozens of late platform changes across the newly four-through-platformed Piccadilly, every night, where tens of thousands of passengers would be affected, not just a few thousand as at Oxford Road. In all our modelling, only four tracking throughout gave a significant improvement to both capacity and reliability. If that is provided some other way, as GM are proposing, then fine, if it works.

 

 

 

 

That is largely due to platform layouts!

 

If the platforms are arranged as islands and paired by direction then a platform alteration is easily managed with very little hassle.

 

Agreed that if the platforms are arranged as per the current Oxford Road setup then such a last minute change will cause considerable inconvenience.

 

As such if large scale rebuilding were on the cards then a reconfiguration of the platforms into 2 islands with trains in the same direction using either side of the same island (as happens with the Charing Cross platforms at London Bridge) would be incredibility beneficial.

[PenrithBeacon]

11 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Once electrified, the CLC becomes a good route again ...

Is there really enough traffic over the CLC to justify electrification? And could there be? If it were needed for Freightliners it would also need to be upgraded to the W8 loading gauge.

I can see that with a bit of jiggling here and there more traffic could be diverted to run on it but to what end

I think the fundamental issue is that very few passengers destined for the airport need to travel via the centre of Manchester.  The service via Manchester is grotesquely out of proportion to the need and if those trains could be diverted away to serve the airport directly then it would provide relief for the SJ&A. It would probably be necessary to put the airport on a loop instead of a dead end branch but it would resolve much of the problem of congestion in Manchester. A line off the CLC Mid Cheshire line to the airport could give access from the west off the WCML  for example but I'm sure that there are others.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Is there really enough traffic over the CLC to justify electrification? And could there be?

 

 

Was there really enough traffic to justify the Edinburgh - Glasgow via Shots line?

 

NO is the honest answer but unlike England, the Scottish Government could see the wider non financial benefits of the scheme so it got done even though the BCR was poor.

 

Its a no brainier that if they existed in any other civilised European country ALL the Liverpool - Manchester routes would be wired by now!

[woodenhead]

Main routes all need to be electrified and stations along the route will see increases in populations in coming years.

 

The CLC is a good diversionary route for the Chat Moss so wiring makes that possible.

 

I don't see it as a freight corridor, Chat Moss/Port Salford will be the principle freight corridor, but having an electric CLC may allow more services to use that route if freight picks up enough.

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Is there really enough traffic over the CLC to justify electrification? And could there be? If it were needed for Freightliners it would also need to be upgraded to the W8 loading gauge.

I can see that with a bit of jiggling here and there more traffic could be diverted to run on it but to what end

I think the fundamental issue is that very few passengers destined for the airport need to travel via the centre of Manchester.  The service via Manchester is grotesquely out of proportion to the need and if those trains could be diverted away to serve the airport directly then it would provide relief for the SJ&A. It would probably be necessary to put the airport on a loop instead of a dead end branch but it would resolve much of the problem of congestion in Manchester. A line off the CLC Mid Cheshire line to the airport could give access from the west off the WCML  for example but I'm sure that there are others.

Compared elsewhere the CLC is fairly self-contained for electrification - in recent years the two fast service went onto other non-electrified routes and the stoppers didn't go beyond Oxford Road or Lime Street, so electrifying wouldn't eliminate much diesel running under the wires and hence had a poorer case than the Chat Moss or the Bolton lines.  With those now being largely done and one of the fasts now potentially convertible to EMU throughout, the case may be better now relative to other remaining non-electrified routes, although the increased cost of electrification has made the case worse on all routes.  

 

An option I believe is being looked at is to put a west-facing turnback west of Warrington West and an east-facing one east of Birchwood, and run the stoppers Manchester-WW and Liverpool-Birchwood.  Although this increase the number of trains it improves the capacity situation, because a fast is only following a slow for part of the route.  A fast could be timed to follow a Manchester-WW and precede a Birchwood-Liverpool, so that the fairly few journeys (such as Urmston-Liverpool) that lost their through train would have a connection onto a faster one at one of the Warrington stations.  

 

There's really no scope for freight on the CLC these days.  Trafford Park isn't laid out for westerly access and anything else would have to go through Castlefield.  Access to any of the freight terminals at the Liverpool end would need a reversal, and anything not going to/from the Peak District would have to negotiate Stockport or reverse near Hazel Grove.  Re-opening the Skelton route (vaguely credible) or even the Fallowfield loop (absolutely impossible) wouldn't help much.  

 

The airport doesn't attract enough passengers to warrant separate train services, but is good enough to act as an add-on to trains that would otherwise terminate in the city centre and this gives the airport through service to a wide range of destinations.  So trains need to serve both.  Operationally it also acts as a useful reversing place for anything coming in from the west, where the only alternatives are the bay at Oxford Road, the Mayfield Loop or occupying a through platform at Victoria.  

[4630]

I'm not sure that this (new?) website has featured in the thread before?   I've had a quick look back but couldn't see it mentioned, so apologies if I've missed it.

 

https://thetrupgrade.co.uk/aboutus/

 

So far there doesn't appear to be any information that hasn't been referenced before through other, mostly Network Rail, sources, but it might be useful in future, on the assumption that it's kept up to date of course!

 

Personally, I'd like the site to include more details of the actual plans along the route.  Earlier versions were available previously during the various public 'drop in' sessions arranged by Network Rail and the supporting documents for the Transport and Works Act submission. 

[woodenhead]

Just one more thing on the Intermodal traffic through Oxford Rd, whilst it is already painful threading a long intermodal through the eye of the needle that is the Deansgate corridor where the ar$e end of trains can be in one station whilst the head is sat in another, there is also the impact of trains arriving into Trafford Park itself.

 

Whilst shunting can use the Trafford Park stadium platform line, arriving trains have to snake across the eastbound line and departing trains snake onto the eastbound line.  Late running passenger services can become further impacted should they hit one of these movements and there have been a few times I've been sat on a train just outside Trafford Park sidings waiting for the line to clear as an intermodal makes it move. 

 

With earthworks on the go again at Port Salford and the council having handed Peel the land for them to gain the access to Chat Moss then it is to be hoped that the end game is to move all intermodal away from Trafford Park and over to Port Salford

[adanapress]

Regarding Mol PMBs thought about dual 25Kv  /  750v DC,  and both being overhead.  It might call from some interesting arrangements at switch over points.

[Mike Storey]

On 11/04/2022 at 14:08, 4630 said:

I'm not sure that this (new?) website has featured in the thread before?   I've had a quick look back but couldn't see it mentioned, so apologies if I've missed it.

 

https://thetrupgrade.co.uk/aboutus/

 

So far there doesn't appear to be any information that hasn't been referenced before through other, mostly Network Rail, sources, but it might be useful in future, on the assumption that it's kept up to date of course!

 

Personally, I'd like the site to include more details of the actual plans along the route.  Earlier versions were available previously during the various public 'drop in' sessions arranged by Network Rail and the supporting documents for the Transport and Works Act submission. 

 

Thanks for this. It may prove useful in future, but it is published by NR, on behalf of the others, and gives practically no more info than the NR projects site itself. It is more of a PR exercise for disturbances during imminent works, so far.

 

As you say, where is the info on the entire plan, even if with little detail?

 

[62613]

Trip round the inner ring road in Manchester yesterday, from Belle Vue to Rochdale Road. The OHL masts have reached the site of Miles Platting station. Nothing else on them yet

Edited May 21, 2022 by 62613

[Coach bogie]

On 20/03/2022 at 23:22, PenrithBeacon said:

The service via Manchester is grotesquely out of proportion to the need

But how many of those trains terminate at Manchester Airport to relieve conjestion/blocking platform space at the city centre stations. 

 

In other centres,   terminating away from the hub stations to keep platform space clear.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[SHMD]

6 minutes ago, Coach bogie said:

But how many of those trains terminate at Manchester Airport to relieve conjestion/blocking platform space at the city centre stations. 

 

In other centres,   terminating away from the hub stations to keep platform space clear.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

That was the whole point of the Stalybridge remodelling with two bay platforms pointing towards Manchester.

Already the Southport/Wigan services terminate at Stalybridge. (Unless they are turned back early due to late running.)

 

There are quite a few masts and gantries up now between Miles Platting and Ashton. With quite a lot of work done in the Droylsden area.

A very high percentage of the Piles must be in by now too.

 

 

Kev.

[DY444]

On 11/04/2022 at 19:13, adanapress said:

Regarding Mol PMBs thought about dual 25Kv  /  750v DC,  and both being overhead.  It might call from some interesting arrangements at switch over points.

 

Not really.  AC to DC ole switchovers happen on the continent.  In France alone there are several places with a transition from 25KV to 1500V DC ole so there is no technical problem with it.  It seems to me the only difference is that SNCF and the other operators in France appear to trust their drivers not to mess it up where as here a plethora of technology (and associated expense) seems to be required.

Edited May 22, 2022 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Not really.  AC to DC ole switchovers happen on the continent.  In France alone there are several places with a transition from 25KV to 1500V DC ole so there is no technical problem with it.  It seems to me the only difference is that SNCF and the other operators in France appear to trust their drivers not to mess it up where as here a plethora of technology (and associated expense) seems to be required.

And not just SNCf as SNCB Drivers have to do it at border stations where trains don't stop.  That probably happens at other borders as well although Aachen, among others, is different (or was prior to the latest alterations so might have changed) as it is a gare commutable where the train runs in on one supply system and the supply system is changed over while the train is standing at the platform as well as the Driver changing over the loco.

 

Having seen at first hand what happens on the mainland I've long been puzzled by the way NR etc has gone about it in a way which simply doesn't place any trust in the Driver.

[caradoc]

Have there ever been any changeover points between 1500v DC and 25kV AC OLE in the UK ? I am not aware of any. There were of course changeovers between 6.25kV AC and 25kV AC, and those were entirely automatic.  

 

[GordonC]

6 minutes ago, caradoc said:

Have there ever been any changeover points between 1500v DC and 25kV AC OLE in the UK ? I am not aware of any. There were of course changeovers between 6.25kV AC and 25kV AC, and those were entirely automatic.  

 

 

Manchester Piccadilly would have had both a DC side and an AC side of the station. I think the through platforms had been electrified with DC, but not sure if that moved back to Oxford Road when the AC Electrification arrived.

[TheSignalEngineer]

4 hours ago, GordonC said:

 

Manchester Piccadilly would have had both a DC side and an AC side of the station. I think the through platforms had been electrified with DC, but not sure if that moved back to Oxford Road when the AC Electrification arrived.

As far as I remember there was no switching of the OLE at Piccadilly. The DC was cut back to the bays at Oxford Road and the AM4 units initially worked Crewe to Oxford Road as 25KV then later through to Altrincham when that section was converted. 

[Edwin_m]

The Sheffield-Rotherham tram-trains have the ability to run on 25kV as well as 750V, but it isn't used.  The overhead line on the Network Rail section is designed to be convertible to 25kV with minimum modification, although someone at NR later said it would have been better to provide standard 750V equipment and replace it if that section was ever energised at 25kV. 

 

I understand that there is a risk of damage if a system configured for 25kV is fed with 750V (too much voltage) or vice versa (too much current), so if the tram-trains lose power for more than a certain length of time a voltage detector circuit is employed to ensure closing of the circuit breakers to send the power to the correct set of traction equipment.  This requires a longer neutral section (measured in running time) than typical on a 25kV system.  I believe the old 25kV/6.25kV system did something similar, with spectacular results on a couple of occasions when it didn't.   

 

Lost track somewhat of where we got into this bit of discussion, but in an attempt to get back onto topic will point out that TfGM has been looking at ideas for tram-trains for at least 20 years, and these would require dual-voltage vehicles.  The tram-trains now being delivered for Cardiff Valleys will be 25kV or battery only.  

Edited May 23, 2022 by Edwin_m

[caradoc]

18 hours ago, GordonC said:

Manchester Piccadilly would have had both a DC side and an AC side of the station.

 

Indeed, but there were never any dual-system trains able to run on both, so the Signallers had to be extra careful routing trains......