Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Contact detailsIf you would like more details please email:[email protected]
or write to:
Manchester HubNetwork RailSquare One4 Travis StreetManchester M1 2NY Manchester Hub
Rail Study
Planning ahead for the future of rail in the north
2 The Manchester Hub Rail Study
• The last ten years has seen a transformation in railacross the North of England, with more passengerschoosing to travel by train.
• Hundreds more trains now run every day, and they aresafer and more reliable than ever before.
• With significant economic growth in the North, andpeople prepared to commute further to work, more peo-ple now prefer to travel by train than on congestedroads or by plane.
• Enhancements to the rail network such as additional andfaster north south services from the upgrade of the WestCoast Main Line as well as improved safety, performanceand reliability have supported this modal shift.
• The North’s city region economies are forecast to con-tinue to grow and we are making significant investmentin new infrastructure before 2014. This will result in evenmore people choosing rail as the quickest, most environ-mentally friendly and easiest way to travel.
The challenge• Fast and reliable links between the North’s city regions
are essential to support growth of jobs and businesses.Growth in rail commuting into the North’s city centreswill support their sustainable growth.
• Also vital to the future economic prosperity of the Northare improved links to ports and airports. Manchester Air-port is the UK’s largest airport outside the South East.
• Even with planned investment, the North’s strategicroad network is forecast to become more congestedwith journeys taking longer and being more unreliable.
• We want to meet this challenge by enabling train opera-tors to provide faster, more frequent and more reliabletrain services than ever before, right the way across theNorth.
Achieving the ambition• To support this, we need to provide the capacity on the
rail network to enable journeys to be made reliably:
- within the city regions
- between city regions
- and to ports and airports.
• The major barriers to achieving these are:
(i) limited capacity and railway conflicts in Manchester,through which the majority of rail services that runacross the North pass
(ii) slower journey times including the lack of facilitiesfor fast services to overtake stopping services on themajor routes across the North.
• These barriers limit the degree to which rail can supportthe North’s sustainable economic growth.
• Work undertaken by the Northern Way indicates that re-moving these barriers is vital for the continued eco-nomic prosperity of the North.
• The Manchester Hub is the most significant rail bottle-neck in the North. Constraints there affect commuterservices, services that link the North’s city regions, serv-ices to and from Manchester Airport (the North’s mostimportant international gateway) and they limit thegrowth of rail freight.
• The study has been carried out in two phases;
- Phase One led by the Northern Way has identifiedthe economic case for enhancement to the Man-chester Hub and the improvements to rail servicesthat would drive this economic growth. These aredescribed as conditional outputs.
- Phase Two led by Network Rail has identified valuefor money interventions to address the gaps be-tween the capability of the network in 2014 and thecapability required to deliver the conditional outputs.
• The conditional outputs identified by the Northern Wayin Phase One relate to:
- Capacity to meet growth forecast to 2019 and 2030
- Carbon reduction
- Performance
- Journey times between Manchester and adjoiningNorthern cities
- Connections between towns and growth areas ofGreater Manchester
- Connectivity to deliver economic benefit
- Frequency of service to Manchester Airport
- Service interval and frequency on trans Pennineroutes
3
Executive summary
- North/South capacity
- Freight.
The solution• Network Rail has identified a preferred solution that
delivers excellent value for money and provides theopportunity for faster, more frequent and more reliableservices, freeing up capacity and providing for futuregrowth in demand.
• Working with the Department for Transport, FirstTransPennine Express, Northern Rail, DB Schenker andGreater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive aswell as the Northern Way, we have identified a strategywhich will:
- increase platform capacity in central Manchester
- remove conflicts which use up much valuablecapacity
- increase capacity on key lines across Manchesterand on major routes across the North.
• Following detailed consideration of alternatives,Network Rail identified two strategic options to providethe capability to achieve the conditional outputs: one toallow greater use of Manchester Piccadilly; the othergreater use of Manchester Victoria.
• Our work demonstrates that the Manchester Victoriaoption offers better value for money and greaterbenefits at a lower capital cost.
• The preferred option involves:
- A new section of railway west of Manchester citycentre at Ordsall, to allow trains to travel fromManchester Victoria to both Manchester Piccadillyand Manchester Airport stations.
- Major improvements to Manchester Victoriaallowing many more services to use the station andproviding improved facilities for passengers.
- New tracks on the North trans Pennine line betweenLeeds and Liverpool and on the Hope Valleybetween Sheffield and Manchester to allow fasttrains between the major towns and cities of thenorth to overtake slower trains.
• The Department for Transport, First TransPennineExpress, Northern Rail, DB Schenker, GreaterManchester Passenger Transport Executive, and theNorthern Way support this preferred option as the bestway of resolving the Manchester Hub problem.
Faster, more frequent and more reliable services• Our preferred option provides the capability for
significant improvements to rail services across theNorth, including inter-regional, commuter and freightservices.
• For inter-regional services the opportunity is created to:
- increase the frequency of train services betweenmajor cities in the North
- provide direct train services between cities in theNorth where currently passengers change trains inManchester
- reduce journey times across the North
- provide new direct links between Northern cities andManchester Airport.
• This will provide the opportunity to:
- improve journey times on the North trans Pennineroute, reducing journey times for passengersbetween the North East, Yorkshire and the Humberand Manchester, Liverpool and other destinationswest of Manchester
- improve journey times from Sheffield and the EastMidlands to Manchester, Manchester Airport,Liverpool and other destinations west of Manchester
- provide direct journeys from Bradford, Halifax andthe Calder Valley to Manchester Airport anddestinations west of Manchester
- provide direct services from Chester to destinationsbeyond Manchester
- reduce delays to services across the north of England.
• On key Manchester commuter corridors the opportunityis created to:
- enable more commuter and local services to runthroughout the day
- make commuter and local services faster than everbefore
- introduce 15 minute frequency services betweenManchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road,Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airportimproving end-to-end journey times by makingManchester city centre more accessible by rail
- connect north east Manchester into the wider railnetwork by running through Manchester Victoria.
• For freight operations the study provides the opportunity to;
- double capacity into the Trafford Park terminals
- provide capacity for traffic to planned new freightterminals.
Next steps• The work undertaken forms part of our planning process
for Control Period 5 (CP5) between 2014 and 2019.
• Network Rail will continue to work with the rail industryand stakeholders to develop the preferred option set outhere, including the further electrification proposals witha view to inclusion as a specified scheme in the 2012High Level Output Specification.
• Our strategy has been developed to provide furtheropportunities beyond Control Period 5 (2014 to 2019).These include:
- even greater capacity on the network
- reducing journey times even further
- allowing for the arrival of a future high speed lineinto Manchester or other service improvements toservices from London, Birmingham and the South.
• By doing this, we can continue to provide the faster,more frequent and more reliable services that underpinthe sustainable economic growth of the North ofEngland.
4 Executive Summary 5
1 Background 9
2 Dimensions 13
3 Baseline capacity 19
4 Drivers for change 35
5 Gaps and options 43
6 Evaluation of strategic options 57
7 Conclusions 69
8 Opportunities for service improvements from the preferred option 71
Glossary 75
Appendix A Details of stakeholder meetings 77
Appendix B Infrastructure interventions evaluated 80
Appendix C Train service modelled 84
7
Contents
6 Contents
1.1 IntroductionTheManchester Hub is the network of rail corridors thatlink and cross in and around the centre ofManchester. TheManchester Hub is themost significant rail bottleneck inthe North of England. It limits the capacity, performanceand connectivity of commuter and longer distancepassenger services terminating inManchester or passingthrough the Hub. It therefore adversely affects journeysbetween the North’s city regions. It also limits the numberof trains, from across the North and beyond, that can serveManchester Airport, the North’s principal airport, as well asthose that can access important distribution centres forfreight.
On 4th October 2007, the then Department for TransportMinister of State, RosieWinterton, responding to the workof the NorthernWay, asked Network Rail to undertake astudy to develop proposals to enhance the capacity andfunctionality of theManchester Hub. TheManchester HubStudy has been undertaken in two phases. This wasoverseen by a Department for Transport (DfT)-chairedSponsors’ Group, the other members being the NorthernWay, Greater Manchester Integrated TransportAuthority/Passenger Transport Executive (GMITA/PTE),Manchester City Council, Government Office of the NorthWest (GONW) and Network Rail.
The Sponsors’ Group agreed a two phase approach to thestudy:
• Phase One led by the NorthernWay identified theeconomic case for enhancement to theManchesterHub and the improvements to rail services that woulddrive economic growth, which are described asconditional outputs.
• Phase Two led by Network Rail identified value formoney interventions to address the gaps between thecapability of the network in 2014 and the capabilityrequired to deliver the conditional outputs. In terms ofNetwork Rail’s project development processinterventions are developed to a GRIP11 level of detail.
The NorthernWay concluded Phase One in their report“Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement” in April2009. The NorthernWay’s report can be downloaded fromtheir websitewww.thenorthernway.co.uk.
1.2 Stakeholder participationThe process adopted for Phase Two of the study wasdesigned to be inclusive. It involved active partnershipworking between industry parties and wider regionalstakeholders through a Steering Group and sub groupsinvolving; DfT, DB Schenker, Northern Rail, FirstTransPennine Express, GMPTE, Government Office of theNorthWest (GONW) and the NorthernWay, withFreightliner, Arriva TrainsWales, CrossCountry, EastMidlands Trains, Virgin Trains, andMerseytravel(Merseyside PTE) joining a subgroup to work at a detailedlevel. There was also extensive consultation with a widergroup of stakeholders through a series of workshops heldduring the study period.
This process included identification of the potentialinfrastructure interventions and creation of a servicespecification which was designed to identify the networkcapability required tomeet the conditional outputs.
1.3 Document structureChapter 2 describes the geographic scope of the study andthe planning context within which it has been developed.
Chapter 3 summarises the capabilities of the network asthey are planned to be at the end of Control Period 4(2009-2014) and the usage of the routes within the area,drawing on input from key industry stakeholders, andhighlighting particular issues.
Chapter 4 discusses anticipated changes in supply anddemand identified in Phase One of the study and thefactors identified as important to driving economic growthand identified in the conditional outputs.
Chapter 5 analyses the gaps between the networkcapability in 2014 and that required to deliver theconditional outputs. This chapter draws the analysistogether into two strategic options for theManchesterHub.
Chapter 6 evaluates the strategic options to identify arecommended option for theManchester Hub forimplementation in Control Period 5 (2014-2019) andbeyond.
Chapter 7 outlines the recommended strategy for furtherdevelopment to enhance services across the north ofEngland through theManchester Hub.
98 Chapter 1: Background
Chapter 1
Background
1GRIP; Guide to Railway Investment Projects, Network Rail’s project developmentframework where 1 represents the earliest stage and GRIP 3 representsidentification of a single option for design and implementation.
Chapter 8 describes the opportunities for improvements torail services as a result of the preferred option.
Appendix A identifies the various stakeholder meetings
Appendix B identifies the infrastructure interventionsevaluated
Appendix C outlines the train servicemodelling to test theconcept of theManchester Hub
10 Chapter 1: Background 11
2.1 PurposeThe purpose of this, the Phase Two of the ManchesterHub Study is to take the work done by the NorthernWay, and then;
• identify the gaps between the capability of the networkin 2014 and the capability required to deliver theconditional outputs
• identify the value for money interventions to addressthese gaps.
2.2. StakeholdersThe study involved two main groups of stakeholders.These were the Steering Group and the WiderStakeholder Group. The Steering Group met every six toeight weeks to monitor progress and guide future work.The Steering Group consisted of members from thefollowing organisations:
• Network Rail
• Department for Transport (DfT)
• The Northern Way
• Northern Rail
• First TransPennine Express
• DB Schenker
• Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive(GMPTE)
• Government Office of the North West (GONW)
The Wider Stakeholder Group included a wide range ofstakeholders and consisted of the rail industry(passenger and freight operators), as well as local andregional authorities with transport responsibilities. TheWider Stakeholder Group met on several occasions to beupdated and give feedback on progress. Themembership of this group is shown below.
• Merseytravel
• South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
• Manchester Airport
• Association of North East Councils
• Association of Train Operating Companies
• North West Development Agency
• Lancashire County Council
• Freight Transport Association
• Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company
• Yorkshire Forward
• Halton Borough Council
• Metro (West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive)
• Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority
• Office of Rail Regulation
• 4NW
• GONW
• Yorkshire and Humber Assembly
• North West Rail Campaign
• The Northern Way
• Peel Ports
• DfT
• Derbyshire County Council
• Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
• Warrington Borough Council
• Cheshire East Council
• Cheshire West and Chester Council
• Arriva Trains Wales
• Freightliner
• Northern Rail
• TransPennine Express
• Virgin Trains
• CrossCountry
• East Midlands Trains
• DB Schenker.
Chapter 2
Dimensions
1312 Chapter 2: Dimensions
In addition, working groups were constituted that meton various occasions to develop options and the servicelevel specification. The organisations involved in theseare shown below:
• Arriva Trains Wales
• Freightliner
• Northern Rail
• First TransPennine Express
• Virgin Trains
• CrossCountry
• East Midlands Trains
• DB Schenker
• GMPTE
• Merseytravel.
The details of the groups meetings are at Appendix A.
2.3. Timeframe and linkages to other studiesThere are a number of other studies and projects whichhave an interface with the Manchester Hub study.
• The Manchester Hub study builds on the North Westand Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategies(RUSs).
• Trans Pennine linespeed improvements being developedby Network Rail to reduce journey times between Leeds,Manchester and Liverpool for delivery by 2014 asdetailed in the DfT’s 2007 White Paper.
• Work on the future timetables for the West Coast MainLine has continued in parallel with this study. Theemerging outputs especially at Stafford have formedthe basis for the timetabling of traffic from the south inthe Hub study.
• The New Lines report published by Network Rail and theHS2 study has guided the understanding of potentialhigh speed options that the Manchester Hub Studyneeds to take into account.
• The Network RUS Electrification has been publishedduring the Hub study. To avoid duplication, the Hubstudy has avoided interventions that involveelectrification. However the synergies will be identifiedin future development phases.
• The Northern RUS is one of the second generation ofRUSs, due to be published for consultation in 2010. ThisRUS will address issues that impact upon a wider areaacross the North. The outputs of the Hub study will forma part of this RUS.
• The submissions to the DfT for Control Period 5 (2014 –2019) and beyond are expected to be in 2011/12, withthe Initial Strategic Business Plan submission due inSummer 2011.
• A series of Delivering a Sustainable Transport System(DaSTS) studies are taking place across the study areawhich include; Trans Pennine, Access to Manchester,Access to Leeds and North West Connectivity.
• In addition, three franchises operating in the Hub areaare due for specification and reletting in the near future:Virgin (2012), First TransPennine Express (2012) andNorthern Rail (2013). The outputs of the study caninfluence the DfT’s work in determining thespecification of the future services to be operated in theHub area.
2.4. GeographyThe geographical scope of the study area has beenlimited to make sure that the focus is on studying theflows across the key railway constraints. Thegeographical area included in the study is bounded bybut does not include:
• Stoke-on-Trent
• Crewe
• Chester
• Liverpool Lime Street
• Wigan
• Preston
• Blackburn
• Leeds
• Sheffield.
Where appropriate, issues at the periphery will be dealtwith by the Northern RUS. Benefits from theinterventions will accrue to the wider area of the North.
Figure 2.1 shows the geographic extent of passengerand freight services coming from or going to the Hubstudy area where the benefits of enhancements acrossthe Manchester Hub will accrue.
14 Chapter 2: Dimensions
Figure 2.1 Train services and Manchester Hub
15
16 Chapter 2: Dimensions
Figure 2.3 Schematic of the study area
17
Man
ches
terH
ub
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Met
rolin
k
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Bury
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Metrolink
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Figure 2.2 Shows the area of the study for infrastructure intervention: in-scope shown in red and out of scope shown in blue
3.1 BaselineThe delivery of the Manchester Hub is not envisagedbefore the start of Control Period 5. The baseline servicestructure and infrastructure for the study has thereforebeen taken to be 2014. As a result the baseline for thecapability of the rail network includes all thecommitments in Control Period 4.
3.2 Train operatorsWhilst the baseline is 2014, the passenger trainoperators and their franchise specifications as at 2014are not yet known. Similarly the operation of anycurrent or future open access operators is not known.Consequently it has been assumed that the currentoperators and services continue, except where there areknown changes. At present, seven franchised passengertrain operators and six freight train operators runservices over the lines covered by the study area.
These are:
3.2.1 Northern RailNorthern Rail operates the majority of the services andstations in this area, and is the only operator to runservices on all Manchester corridors. Northern is theoperator of all bar one of the local services in the Hubarea. The Northern franchise runs to 2013, with finaltwo years subject to performance targets beingachieved.
3.2.2 First TransPennine ExpressFirst TransPennine Express (TPE) operates interurbanservices with limited stops, notably across the Penninestowards Leeds and Sheffield and beyond, andnorthwards to Preston and beyond. The key hubs for TPEin the study area are Manchester Airport andManchester Piccadilly. The current franchise wasawarded in February 2004 and runs until 2012.
3.2.3 Arriva Trains WalesArriva Trains Wales (ATW) operates services from Walesinto Manchester Piccadilly via both Stockport andWarrington. Despite its inter-regional nature, the servicefrom North Wales is in effect the ‘local’ service fromChester via Warrington Bank Quay. The franchise is dueto run until 2018.
3.2.4 East Midlands TrainsEast Midlands Trains operates services in the study areafrom Liverpool Lime Street towards Sheffield andbeyond via Manchester Piccadilly and the Hope Valley.The franchise was awarded in 2007 and is due to expirein 2015.
3.2.5 CrossCountryCrossCountry operates services in the study area fromthe south and south west of England, through the WestMidlands to Manchester Piccadilly. The franchise wasawarded for a nine-year period from 2007.
3.2.6 Virgin TrainsVirgin Trains operates services from London Euston toManchester Piccadilly, Liverpool Lime Street, andPreston and beyond in the study area. The franchise wasawarded for a 15-year period from 1997 to 2012.
3.2.7 Merseyrail ElectricsMerseyrail operates services on the electrified Merseyrailsystem focused on Liverpool. These interface with thestudy area at Hunts Cross. The concession is due toexpire in July 2028.
3.2.8 DB SchenkerDB Schenker runs services for a wide range of freightmarkets. Of particular interest to the study are the bulkflows out of Liverpool docks, intermodal containers toand from Trafford Park and aggregates from the PeakDistrict.
3.2.9 FreightlinerFreightliner has two divisions:
• Freightliner Limited hauls container traffic,predominantly in the deep sea market. It operatesservices out of Garston, Ditton and Trafford Parkterminii
• Freightliner Heavy Haul is a significant conveyor of bulkgoods, predominantly coal, construction materials andpetroleum, and also operates infrastructure services. Itoperates out of the Peak District, and also carries theManchester waste traffic.
3.2.10 First GB RailfreightFirst GB Railfreight operates services to Fiddlers Ferryfrom Liverpool Bulk Terminal and Ellesmere Port.
1918 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Chapter 3
Baseline capacity
3.2.11 Fastline FreightFastline Freight operates services out of Liverpool BulkTerminal.
3.2.12 Other freight operatorsDirect Rail Services and Colas Rail both operate on theWest Coast Main Line and occasionally in the studyarea. Serco and West Coast Railway both have accesscontracts allowing them to operate on the study area.
3.3 Current pattern of servicesBroadly, there is a standard hourly pattern of passengertrain services, with an hourly pattern of freight paths,not all of which are used. The impact of the peak variesby location/corridor. Some see the same level of servicebut with longer trains, some see the off peak level ofservice, with an overlay of additional services, and somesee a completely different pattern of services.
Figure 3.1 is a schematic that indicates the level ofservice seen in a standard hour on the study area.
3.4 Rail network in the study areaThe principal physical characteristics that impact on thestudy and have been considered are:
• planning headways
• loops / four tracking
• linespeeds
• junction turnout speeds
• electrification
• Metrolink.
3.4.1 Planning headwaysThe headway is a measure of how closely (in time) onetrain can follow another. Within the study area,headways vary from two minutes along the Castlefieldcorridor to six minutes at Milner Royd Junction, andeven more on some single line sections. Most notable ofthe single lines are parts of the busy section betweenBolton and Blackburn, and between Stockport andChester. In both instances the presence of multiplesingle line sections on the same route makes timingservices more difficult than would otherwise be thecase. Single lines restrict the number of services that canrun and are generally a performance risk. There are anumber of lines where the headways vary along theroute. In some cases, this suits the service pattern andtrain type, however, it can limit capacity reducing theability to alter the timetable, recover from perturbation,or use the route for diversions. This is the case on theAtherton line, and along the Calder Valley.
Figure 3.2 shows that there is very little two minuteheadway, but a good portion of three and four minuteheadways. However, there are significant portions of thearea that either have absolute block signalling or haveheadways longer than four minutes.
3.4.2 Loops and four-trackingCapacity is determined not just by headways but alsoby the ability for trains to pass each other, particularlyfast trains to overtake slow ones. Figure 3.3 shows thatin the study area there are relatively few opportunitiesfor one train to pass another; there is little four trackrailway, and few loops. Where there are loops, they arein many instances not readily useable in both directions.
3.4.3 Line speedsThe prevailing linespeed in most route sections isbetween 50mph and 75mph, although there aresignificant portions that are only 50mph or less. All ofthe passenger rolling stock currently used in the studyarea, however, is capable of at least 75mph, with theelectric units and the interurban diesel units capable of90mph and above. Very little of the study area iscapable of more than 75mph for all passenger services.Whilst a good portion of the Hope Valley is faster forSprinter units1, class 185 units which constitute half ofthe fast passenger services are not able to make use ofthat higher speed. There are a number of routes alongwhich the linespeed varies. This can be inefficient interms of capacity and journey time, depending on unittypes and stopping patterns. In some cases the speedprofile has been tailored to a historic stopping pattern,and consequently perpetuates this historic stoppingpattern. This is especially true for the interurbanservices, which do not stop as regularly as local services,and consequently – all other things permitting (such asclearances and track alignment) would be capable ofreaching speeds much higher than the currentmaximum.
There is a Control Period 4 (CP4) scheme to improvespeeds between Liverpool and Manchester via ChatMoss and between Manchester and Leeds. Reductions injourney times between these cities are a move towardsthe Department for Transports (DfT’s) White Papertarget journey time of 30 minutes between LiverpoolLime Street and Manchester Oxford Road via Chat Mossand 43 minutes between Manchester and Leeds. Thedetails of the outputs of that work have not beendetermined at the stage of this report going to pressand are expected in summer 2010.
3.4.4 Junction turnout speedsAs well as being affected by the speed of plain line,journey time is also affected by the need to slow downat junctions. The majority of the junction turnoutspeeds are 35mph and below. Deceleration fromlinespeed and subsequent acceleration back tolinespeed after crossing a junction costs time andcapacity. The slower the turnout speed, the greater theimpact. In some cases, the requirement for approachcontrol on the signalling impacts journey time anddecreases capacity further.
20 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.1
21
1A category of passenger diesel multiple unit.
22 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.3 Loops and four-tracking
23
Man
ches
terH
ub
Loop
san
dfo
ur-tr
acki
ng
Loop
s-t
wo
Loop
-one
only
4-tra
ckR
ailw
ay
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Man
ches
terH
ub
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
Hea
dway
sS
ingl
eLi
ne
Abs
olut
eB
lock
6+m
inut
es
5m
inut
es
4m
inut
es
3m
inut
es
2m
inut
es
dash
edin
dica
tes
am
ix
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/E
astL
ancs
Rai
lway
Figure 3.2 Headways in the study area
24 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.5 Turnout speeds
25
Man
ches
terH
ubTu
rnou
tspe
eds
upto
20m
ph
upto
30m
ph
upto
50m
ph
upto
75m
ph
upto
90m
ph
over
90m
ph
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Dei
ghto
n
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/E
astL
ancs
Rai
lway
Man
ches
terH
ubLi
nesp
eeds
upto
20m
ph
upto
30m
ph
upto
50m
ph
upto
75m
ph
upto
90m
ph
over
90m
ph
pote
ntia
lfor
impr
ovem
ent
from
CP
4in
terv
entio
n
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/E
astL
ancs
Rai
lway
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Dei
ghto
n
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Figure 3.4 Linespeeds
Man
ches
terH
ub
Ele
ctrif
icat
ion
Ele
ctrif
ied
25kv
Pla
nned
25kv
elec
trific
atio
n
com
plet
eby
2014
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
3.4.5 ElectrificationThere is limited electrification within the study area.Through the middle of the area runs the electrified WestCoast Main Line, with electrified branches connectingLiverpool and Manchester with the West Midlands andLondon. None of these three routes – the main line andthe two branches – currently has a fully electrifieddiversionary route. Electrified services also run on localroutes from Manchester southwards along the Styal lineand to Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe, as well as toHadfield/Glossop in the east. This means that there arefew economies of scale for the electric train fleet. In July2009 the DfT announced that the Chat Moss route,Liverpool to Manchester via Newton-le-Willows, will beelectrified by 2014. At the conclusion of the study inDecember 2009 the DfT announced the furtherelectrification of the routes from Huyton to Wigan andManchester to Blackpool via Preston.
3.4.6 MetrolinkAs well as the existing Metrolink network, there is theauthorised and funded expansion phase 3a, and inaddition the Greater Manchester Transport Fundprogramme to carry out part of phase 3b. This sees thefollowing additions to the network open for traffic in2013:
• an increase in the number of vehicles to allow more4-car operation
• the former heavy rail Oldham Loop brought onto theMetrolink network with extension into Oldham andRochdale town centres
• a line extended from the terminal Metrolink platformsat Manchester Piccadilly on to Droylsden and Ashton-under-Lyne
• a new branch off the Altrincham line between TraffordBar and Old Trafford extending through Chorlton-cum-Hardy to East Didsbury
• a spur off the Eccles line between Harbour City andBroadway to Media City.
In addition but not delivered before 2014 are theextension to Manchester Airport and increased capacitythrough the city centre.
3.5 Analysis of baseline infrastructurecapacity
3.5.1 Theory of constraintsTheory of Constraints (ThoC) is a methodology forunderstanding capacity by considering the system andinter-relationships between individual constraints. Themethodology has two stages.
1. Review capacity use at individual constraint;
2. Reviews a line of route to identify the inter-relationshipsbetween capacity use at individual constraints and theresultant ‘spare’ capacity along a line of route for asample hour.
The presence of ‘spare’ capacity does not necessarilyindicate capacity exists for additional services but thatit may be possible to create it.
Within the Manchester Hub study area there is acomplex pattern of capacity use involving multiplecentres (e.g. Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoriaand Manchester Airport), numerous radial routes, a mixof services of different types and a large number ofcapacity constraints. Generally, constraints close toManchester are characterised by high volumes of trafficand on radial routes by high headways but with a lowervolume of mixed traffic.
Overall capacity use is high at many of the individualconstraints even in off-peak periods reflectinginfrastructure layout and the requirements of thevarious services. Both Manchester Victoria andManchester Piccadilly are used in a ‘non-optimal’ wayby some services. At Manchester Victoria for example, asubstantial proportion of the capacity of its ‘through’platforms is used by terminating services. AtManchester Piccadilly, services between the North Eastand Manchester Airport use the ‘terminal’ platforms inorder to reverse direction.
The pattern of traffic and the layout of infrastructureresults in a large number of conflicting moves throughout the study area. A substantial amount of capacity issaved through timetabling parallel moves, which haswider implications for capacity as the timings of servicesin opposite directions become linked. However, evenwith parallel moves many locations are highlycongested.
Many routes are affected by more than one constraintand these are often of different types. Nearer toManchester each constraint has an impact on a numberof different flows, which means that their impact onoverall capacity use is widespread. The close proximityof some constraints to each other also has a significantimpact on route capacity. The combination of thecomplex pattern of capacity use and the existence of anumber of significant constraints produces a very highcapacity use on many of the routes in the study area.
Figure 3.8 shows the overall level of used capacity onthe key lines of route into Manchester in the morninghigh-peak (08:00-09:00). Whilst some individual lines ofroute have less than 100 percent utilisation this is inpractice unusable for additional services.
The analysis concludes that the inter-relationship ofconstraints is such that there is no single interventionthat will unlock the Manchester Hub. The enhancementof services will require a strategy of interventions acrossthe core area and radial routes.
26 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.6 Electrification
27
28 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.8 Theory of Constraints; Theoretical use of capacity 08:00 – 09:00 hours
29
Man
ches
terH
ub
Indi
cativ
eU
se(w
orst
dire
ctio
n)10
0%95
%+
90%
+80
%+
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/E
astL
ancs
Rai
lway
Man
ches
terH
ub
Met
rolin
kEx
istin
gBy
2013
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Met
rolin
k
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Bury
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Med
iaC
ityAr
dwic
k
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Figure 3.7 The scope of Metrolink operation
3.5.2 Manchester Piccadilly terminal platformsThe Theory of Constraints (ThoC) work identified thaton average platforms 1 - 12 are 69 percent used, onlytaking into account whether or not a platform isoccupied. This average is depressed by the low use ofplatforms 10 -12 due to the single lead access.Platforms 1 - 9 have over 80 percent as an all dayaverage. In addition, there is a significant use ofplatforms by more than one train at a time, especiallyat peak times.
The use of platforms 4 - 8 is dominated by long distanceservices occupying platforms for around half an hour.The use of platforms 1 - 3 is dominated by local servicesand trains to and from Manchester Airport all withrelatively short layovers. Platforms 4 - 8 are used onaverage by two trains an hour, platforms 1 - 3 by almostfour trains an hour.
The analysis of platforms 1 - 4 indicates that as trainsare lengthened and current vehicles are replaced with23 metre length vehicles the multiple use by two ormore services becomes problematic. Coupled with theneed to maintain capacity at levels consistent with aresilient timetable, for which the ThoC study suggeststhe current 80 percent on conventional signalling shouldnot be exceeded. The analysis of train lengtheningsuggests that significant extra services will requireadditional platform capacity.
3.5.3 Castlefield CorridorThe Castlefield Corridor between Castlefield Jn andPiccadilly East Jn is the key route for services crossingManchester.
The maximum capacity of the corridor is derived fromthe through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly wherethere is two minutes reoccupation and two minutesdwell. In practice, Manchester Oxford Road platformsare used in the same way as Manchester Piccadilly’s,partly because there is no need to do otherwise andpartly because the existing layout restricts the use ofparallel moves there. This fact limits trains to being fourminutes apart between Manchester Piccadilly andCastlefield Jn.
3.5.4 Manchester AirportIn a manner similar to Manchester Piccadilly, thesignalling at Manchester Airport station allows twotrains to be put into the same platform, a facility whichis used frequently. The signalling controls at ManchesterAirport station that allow multiple trains into theplatforms prevent this happening for six-car operation.Thus as train lengthening takes place through ControlPeriod 5 (CP5) and additional services require to accessManchester Airport it will become increasingly difficultto operate the station with the existing three platforms.
3.6 Planned workThe opportunity for enhancing the railway is greatlyimproved if there is synergy with planned renewalsworks. Where there is no renewal on the horizon, thenthe enhancement scheme would have to pay for andjustify the full cost of the alteration. The most significantdiscipline for this is signalling, where a major proportionof the overall cost is in design and testing, and theincrement on that from individual items will be relativelysmall. Unfortunately, for the majority of the area of thestudy, there are few renewals for the foreseeable futurethat could be a catalyst for efficiency.
3.6.1 Committed infrastructure schemesThe following schemes are committed and have beenassumed to have been implemented ahead of any workas a result of this study. As such they have been taken toform a part of the baseline:
• Liverpool – Manchester (via Chat Moss) electrification(from Edge Hill to Victoria and Castlefield Junction)
• Stalybridge remodelling
• Metrolink extensions to Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyneand East Didsbury
• extension of London to Manchester services to 11vehicles (signalling/platform works)
• W10 freight gauge clearance on the Chat Moss route
• Greater Manchester and Yorkshire High Level OutputSpecification (HLOS) interventions:
- platform lengthening necessary for Control Period 4(CP4)
- additional Northern stabling
- Salford Crescent improvements
- linespeed improvements (Liverpool – Manchester -Leeds).
In future development work on the Manchester Hub therecently announced electrification between Manchesterand Blackpool via Preston and Huyton to Wigan will beincluded although not due for completion by 2014.
3.6.2 Expected renewalsThe following renewals items, shown in Figure 3.9,are expected within the time horizon of anyimplementation of the Hub study, and hence offeropportunities for value for money enhancements as anincremental cost:
3.6.2.1 CP5 signalling and switch and crossing renewals• Allerton Jn
• Earlestown Jns
• Bamfurlong Jn
• Ashburys West Jn
• Woodley Jn
• Helsby Jn
• Dore Jn.
30 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity 31
3.6.2.2 Control Period 6 (CP6) signalling renewals• Todmorden
• Smithy Bridge
• Vitriol Works
• Ashton Moss North Jn
• Dore
• Milner Royd
• Norton
• Frodsham
• Mickle Trafford
• Ashburys.
3.6.2.3 Control Period 7 (CP7) signalling renewals• Astley
• Baguley Fold
• Diggle Jn
• Guide Bridge
• Romiley Jn
• New Mills Central
• Totley Tunnel East
• Huddersfield area.
3.6.2.4 Control Period 8 (CP8) signalling renewals• Edge Hill
• Liverpool Lime Street
• Chester
• Chinley.
3.6.3 MetrolinkBeyond the extensions due for opening in 2013, thereare further extensions currently expected to be made atvarious stages in terms of procurement andcommitment. Some are expected to be opened in 2015;others have yet to gain Transport and Works Act Orderpowers. The options below are expected to have beenbrought into use by 2016, but there are other optionsbeyond these which are at an earlier stage ofdevelopment.
• extend from Chorlton-cum-Hardy to Manchester Airport
• create a second route between Cornbrook andManchester Victoria.
3.6.4 Other aspirationsThere are other aspirations for improved services in thestudy area driving infrastructure interventions, such asreinstating a curve at Todmorden, and extending thepassing loop at Darwen to achieve a new service fromBurnley to Manchester and more frequent services toBlackburn. Currently there is no commitment to buildthese or other aspirations and therefore they have notbeen included in the base infrastructure.
3.7 Baseline growth3.7.1 Freight
The Freight Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) identifiedthat the 2004/05 level of traffic to Trafford Park wasaround 17 to 22 intermodal trains a day, with aprediction that by 2014/15 that would become 29 aday. The RUS also identified that the 2008 timetableallowed for 33 freight paths a day to Trafford Park.
3.7.2 PassengerThe July 2007 White Paper: Delivering a SustainableRailway identified that Government wished the railwayindustry to deliver capacity to deal with additionalpassenger demand equating to an average of three anda half percent per year between 2007/08 and 2013/14.Figure 3.10 identifies the level of passenger traffic in2007/08 split by corridor, and illustrates the level ofpassenger traffic in 2013/14 if demand on each of thecorridors increases by the average 3.5 percent in theintervening years.
32 Chapter 3: Baseline capacity
Figure 3.10 Baseline passenger growth
33
Man
ches
terH
ubP
lann
edan
dex
pect
ed
track
and
sign
allin
gre
new
als
&en
hanc
emen
ts
CP
5
CP
6
CP
7
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
Rou
te18
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te21
Rou
te21
Rou
te23
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
ANW
ALLG
ATE
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
Asht
on-u
nder
-Lyne
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Figure 3.9 Planned and expected S&C and signalling renewals and enhancements
Corridor Corridor journeys (m) 2007/08 Corridor journeys (m) 2013/14
1 Southport viaWigan 3.5 4.3
2 Preston and the North via Bolton 16 19.7
3 Blackburn 1.8 2.2
4 Bradford via Rochdale 3 3.7
5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 17.1 21.0
6 Glossop / Hadfield 1.5 1.8
7 Marple / Romiley 1.3 1.6
8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 8.6 10.6
9 Buxton 1.9 2.3
10 London, Birmingham and the South (viaWCML) 39.1 48.1
11 Manchester Airport 2.3 2.8
12 Chester via Northwich 2.1 2.6
13 Liverpool via Irlam 1.6 2.0
14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 5.5 6.8
Total 105.3 129.4
�.1 Manchester Hub Phase One study1
4.1.1 Phase One of the Manchester Hub study was led by theNorthern Way. The Phase One report identifies theimportance to the North’s sustainable economic growthof improvements to rail services across the North. Itidentifies the potential benefits that addressing theManchester Hub problem can bring to the whole of theNorth.
4.1.2 As the Phase One report shows, the evidence baseunderpinning the economic case for addressing theManchester Hub problem is strong. In particular, thePhase One report establishes that:
• City region economies drive regional and nationalgrowth, which was also recognised by the ManchesterIndependent Economic Review. The North’s city regionsperform below the national average and are notmeeting their full potential. The Government has setout its vision that each region should perform to its fulleconomic potential.
• To support economic growth there needs to beadequate capacity, so that journeys can be madereliably and with reasonable journey times;
- within city regions
- between city regions
- to access international gateways.
• Enhancing connectivity within the North’s city regions,between the North’s city regions and to internationalgateways will accelerate the North’s economic growth.
• Enhancing the trans Pennine corridor will support thegrowth of Manchester and Leeds, the North’s twolargest city regions as well as Sheffield and will benefitthe wider North.
• Manchester’s rail network has facilitated the city’ssustainable economic growth by supporting the growthof city centre employment. However, on-train crowdingand the current scope and reach of the network limitsthe scope for future growth.
• Linking areas of economic need with locations withstronger economic growth supports the stronger areasby extending labour markets, while at the same timefacilitating spill over effects into the weaker areas.
• Manchester Airport delivers substantial economicbenefits to the North which will grow as the Airportgrows. Surface access capacity is the most significantconstraint to the Airport’s future growth. Increasingpublic transport mode share is the preferred way toovercome these constraints.
• The North’s ports provide substantial economic benefitto the North which will grow as the throughput grows.Growth in the throughput of intermodal containerscombined with increasing congestion on the strategicroad network will increase the demand to movecontainers by rail.
• The North’s eight City Region DevelopmentProgrammes have the specific function of specifyinghow the key economic drivers (the city regions) canexploit their own strengths to deliver acceleratedeconomic growth. They explicitly recognise theimportance of expanding the Manchester labour marketthrough transport enhancements to supportcommuting, enhancing the transport links between themain centres of each region, and access to ManchesterAirport.
• The strategic road network across the Pennines andaround Manchester experiences network stress andcongestion. Even with committed and plannedinvestment this will worsen over time. The trans Penninerail links and commuter rail links to Manchesterexperience crowding. On trans Pennine routes inparticular there is limited capacity to cater foradditional growth.
• The Northern Way has identified the Manchester Hubas the most significant rail bottleneck in the North andso the most significant rail impediment to maximisingeconomic growth. This is because it constrains thegrowth of rail commuter services, rail links between theNorth’s city regions and between the North and theSouth, rail links to Manchester Airport and rail freight.
�.2 Economic scenarios4.2.1 The Phase One study establishes two economic
scenarios of growth in the North. The two scenarios arecalled ‘Trend’ and ‘Trend Plus’:
• The ‘Trend’ scenario took the Government’s economicand planning assumptions and used these to determinethe economic growth in the study area
Chapter 4
Drivers for change
���� Chapter 4: Drivers for change
1Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement, The Northern Way, April 2009
• The ‘Trend Plus’ scenario represents the successfulachievement of the three northern Regional EconomicStrategies, along with all eight City Regions’Development Programmes. The ‘Trend Plus’ scenarioeffectively sees the growth in the ‘Trend’ scenariohappen earlier rather than generate somefundamentally different conditions. Consequentlysolutions that are credible in the ‘Trend’ scenario arealso credible in ‘Trend Plus’.
For each scenario, forecasts for Gross Value Added(GVA), population, households, workplace employment,residence based employment, and unemployment havebeen derived. These with other transport-relatedvariables (rail cost, car ownership, car time, bus cost andbus time) formed the inputs to a rail demandforecasting model. The model is comprised of a numberof modules:
• MOIRA: The standard railway modelling tool MOIRAwas used to predict the impact of improved trainservices.
• Airport Demand Model: Demand identified as being asa result of growth at Manchester Airport.
• New Flows Model: Benefit from creating new flowsthrough Manchester.
• Crowding Model: To identify the benefits fromproviding less crowded travel.
• Freight Model: To identify the benefits from growth incontainer traffic.
• Wider Economic Benefits Model: To identify thebenefits to the wider northern economy from resultantimprovements in agglomeration, labour markets andimperfect competition.
The Sponsors’ Group agreed that these models wouldbe used in the Phase Two appraisal to understand thepotential impacts of rail service improvements. Furtherdetails of the two economic scenarios and themodelling approach can be found in the Phase Onetechnical reports which are available on the NorthernWay’s website.
Figure �.1 shows the levels of exogenous growth by railcorridor that the economic models suggested would bepresent.
From Figure �.1 it can be seen that within the North,commuter and interurban services on the five corridorsto Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds,Preston and the North via Bolton, Yorkshire and theHumber and East Midlands via Sheffield and the two toLiverpool dominate rail demand on services that use theManchester Hub. The West Coast Main Line (WCML)corridor to the south is the largest of all. In the Trendand Trend Plus scenarios these corridors provide thelargest quantity of forecast growth.
In the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios the fastest rate ofgrowth is projected to occur on corridors where
commuting to Manchester is the dominant flow. Thecorridors to Marple/Romiley, Buxton and ManchesterAirport corridors have the highest rates of growth in theTrend scenario. In the Trend Plus scenario, the corridorsto Bradford via Rochdale, Marple/Romiley and Buxtonhave the highest growth rates. Greater ManchesterPassenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) evidencesuggests the most significant growth in commuting intoManchester has been on routes including Bolton,Rochdale and Stalybridge2.
Recent rail forecasting work carried out by theDepartment for Transport (DfT) with Northern PassengerTransport Executives (PTEs) has shown that previousforecasts tended to underestimate growth on commuterroutes. This work, whilst not yet complete, appears tosupport levels of growth in excess of the “Trend” scenario.
GMPTE has carried out additional work to assess theGross Value Added to the Northern economy byfacilitating such connections as those contained in theHub work. This work identifies that there are significantpositive impacts beyond those identified by theNorthern Way. This work specifically considers theimpact that improved rail connections have oninfluencing economic decisions including; locations ofbusinesses, changes in the sectoral mix, where peoplechoose to live and work, and the impacts these changeshave on business productivities levels. GMPTE intend topublish this work separately.
�.� The conditional outputs4.3.1 From a combination of the economic evidence base and
modelling the Phase One work identified 10 conditionaloutputs for rail service improvements across theManchester Hub. These outputs are described asconditional because their realisation depends on itbeing found possible in Phase Two to identifyinterventions that are both affordable and representvalue for money.
The Phase One report identifies 10 conditional outputsthat the solution should seek to meet. These are;
1. Capacity and flexibility
2. Carbon reduction
�. Performance
�. Journey times
�. Growth centres in Greater Manchester
�. Connectivity to deliver economic benefits
7. Manchester Airport
8. Trans Pennine
9. North South links and High Speed Rail
10. Freight
�� Chapter 4: Drivers for change �7
2Greater Manchester Transport Unit; Annual station count
Figure 4.1 Passenger growth rates
Trend
TrendPlus
1So
uthp
ortv
iaW
igan
�.�0
�.80
�8.0%
2.7%
�.�9
�9.7%
1.8%
�.�0
�8.0%
�.9%
�.�0
88.�%
�.8%
2Pr
esto
nan
dth
eN
orth
via
Bolto
n1�
.00
22.2
0�9
.0%2.
8%27
.29
70.�%
2.�%
2�.�
0�7
.0%�.
2%29
.19
82.�%
�.�%
�Bl
ackb
urn
1.80
2.�0
��.0%
2.�%
2.7�
�1.7%
1.�%
2.�0
�9.0%
�.�%
�.09
71.�%
2.9%
�Br
adfo
rdvi
aRo
chda
le�.
00�.
�0��
.0%�.
1%�.
01�7
.0%1.
9%�.
207�
.0%�.
8%�.
2�10
7.7%
�.�%
�Yo
rksh
irean
dth
eH
umbe
r&th
eN
orth
East
via
Leed
s17
.10
22.�
0�1
.0%2.
�%2�
.7�
��.�%
2.1%
27.9
0��
.0%�.
2%��
.89
10�.
0%�.
1%
�G
loss
op/H
adfie
ld1.
�02.
20�1
.0%2.
9%2.
�17�
.0%2.
�%2.
�0�1
.0%�.
1%�.
0�10
�.1%
�.�%
7M
arpl
e/R
omile
y1.
�02.
00�9
.0%�.
�%2.
�890
.7%�.
2%2.
2070
.0%�.
�%2.
8812
1.�%
�.1%
8Yo
rksh
ire&
the
East
Mid
land
svia
Sheffi
eld
8.�0
12.�
0��
.0%�.
1%1�
.12
87.�%
�.�%
1�.1
0��
.0%�.
2%18
.77
118.
�%�.
2%
9Bu
xton
1.90
2.90
�9.0%
�.�%
�.00
�7.8%
0.8%
�.�0
�8.0%
�.�%
�.�2
79.9%
2.�%
10Lo
ndon
,Birm
ingh
aman
dth
eSo
uth
(via
WCM
L)�9
.10
��.�
0�1
.0%2.
9%71
.00
81.�%
�.1%
�7.7
0�8
.0%�.
�%7�
.19
92.�%
�.8%
11M
anch
este
rAirp
ort
2.�0
�.�0
�9.0%
�.�%
�.9�
71.�%
1.9%
�.�0
�8.0%
�.9%
�.21
8�.2%
2.7%
12Ch
este
rvia
Nor
thw
ich
2.10
2.90
�8.0%
2.7%
�.��
107.
8%�.
9%�.
�0��
.0%�.
1%�.
��1�
8.�%
7.�%
1�Li
verp
oolv
iaIr
lam
1.�0
2.10
��.0%
2.�%
2.28
�2.8
%0.
8%2.
�0�0
.0%�.
�%2.
�0�2
.7%2.
�%
1�Li
verp
ool/
Ches
terv
iaW
arrin
gton
�.�0
7.10
�0.0%
2.2%
8.21
�9.�%
1.�%
7.90
��.0%
�.1%
9.��
7�.0%
�.�%
Total
105.30
146.40
39.0%
2.8%
181.39
72.3%
2.6%
161.80
54.0%
3.6%
205.25
94.9%
4.1%
Corridor
Journeys
(m)2007/08
Corridor
Corridor
Journeys(m)
2019/20
Grow
th2007/08to
2019/20
Average
Grow
thRate
2007/08to
2019/20
Corridor
Journeys(m)
2029/30
Grow
th2007/08to
2029/30
Average
Grow
thRate
2019/20to
2029/30
Corridor
Journeys(m)
2019/20
Grow
th2007/08to
2019/20
Average
Grow
thRate
2007/08to
2019/20
Corridor
Journeys(m)
2029/30
Grow
th2007/08to
2029/30
Average
Grow
thRate
2019/20to
2029/30
4.3.2 Capacity and flexibilityCapacity needs to be provided to accommodate theforecast growth in the various scenarios, with averageload factors no worse than implied by the capacitymetrics for 201�/1� in Manchester in the 2007 HighLevel Output Specification (HLOS) .
4.3.3 Carbon reductionTo contribute to the trajectory of reduced carbonemissions as set at a national level.
4.3.4 PerformanceNetwork performance that the delay minutes onfranchised services in the Manchester area should benot worsened and kept consistent with the HLOS andnational targets.
4.3.5 Journey timesThe following targets for journey times to and fromManchester were identified.
• Leeds �0 minutes
• Bradford �0 minutes
• Sheffield �0 minutes
• Liverpool �0 minutes
• Preston �0 minutes.
4.3.6 Growth centres in Greater Manchester
4.3.6.1 To support the growth and regeneration of theManchester/Salford Regional Centre, from eachprincipal rail corridor� (as shown in figure �.�) to eachsub-area� within the Regional Centre (as shown infigure �.2) there should be:
• a direct rail service; or
• a service that requires no more than a singleinterchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink orMetroshuttle.
4.3.6.2 To support growth outside the regional centre, betweeneach principal rail corridor and Salford Quays thereshould be a service that requires no more than a singleinterchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink orMetroshuttle.
4.3.6.3 To support growth elsewhere in Greater Manchesterbetween each principal rail corridor and each of the keytown centres� there should either be:
• a direct rail service; or
• a service that requires no more than a singleinterchange for onward travel by rail, or Metrolink.
4.3.7 Connectivity to deliver economic benefitsEconomic analysis in Phase One showed that cross citymovements deliver significant incremental benefits. Allprincipal rail corridors to be connected if possible to thesame Manchester city centre station, as well as othercentral area stations where appropriate for the travelmarket.
4.3.8 Manchester Airport• account needs to be taken of links between the airport
and North Wales and the East and West Midlands
• direct services to Manchester Airport of at least anhourly frequency (half hourly in the case of North TransPennine) between each of the principal rail corridors ona seven day a week basis, with a service start and finishtime giving 9� percent of all air passengers the optionof using rail for their inbound and outbound journeysconnecting the airport with the northern city regions.
4.3.9 Trans PennineThe trans Pennine corridors form the spine of the cityregion to city region links. There should be a highfrequency, high quality, regular interval core expressservice that links all the Northern City Regions, meetingthe journey time and performance targets and:
• Leeds – Manchester: 1� minute interval (or better)
• Sheffield – Manchester: 20 minute interval
• Bradford/Halifax - Manchester: �0 minute interval.
4.3.10 North South links and High Speed RailTo meet the forecasts and requirements for a doublingof West Coast Main Line demand by 202�, and withsuch provision as indicated as being appropriate by theNational Networks Strategy Group.
4.3.11 FreightProvision for a doubling of freight tonnage from existingand new origins and destinations to/from multi-modalterminals at Trafford Park and elsewhere in the NorthWest by 20�0.
It is identifying affordable and value for moneyinterventions to bridge the gap between the capabilityof the rail network in 201� and the capability requiredto deliver these conditional outputs that forms thechallenge for this Phase Two study.
�8 Chapter 4: Drivers for change �9
3 The principal rail corridors are: Corridor 2 (serving Preston); Corridor 4 (servingBradford/Halifax); Corridor 5 (serving Newcastle/Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds); Corridor8 (service Sheffield/ South Humber/ and the East Midlands); Corridor 10 (servingLondon / Birmingham); Corridor 13 (serving Liverpool); Corridor 14 (serviceLiverpool/North Wales/Chester), Corridor 11 (Manchester Airport4 The Regional Centre comprises the following sub areas: Central Business District,Retail Core, Eastern Gateway, Piccadilly Gateway, Oxford Road Corridor,Spinningfields, Chapel Street, Victoria, Northern Quarter, Southern gateway, TheVillage, Petersfield, Castlefield, Left Bank, Chinatown: see 2008 draft RegionalTransport Strategy
5 The key town centres are: Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton,Wigan, Altrincham and Stockport
Figure 4.2 Sub-areas in the Manchester regional centre
�0 Chapter 4: Drivers for change �1
Dor
eJc
ns
Dor
e
DEW
SBUR
Y
Mirf
ield
Rav
enst
horp
e
Batle
yM
orle
yC
ottin
gley
BUR
Y
Med
iaC
ity
Rou
te23
Wig
anS
tatio
nJc
n
Rou
te23
Bla
ckbu
rnB
olto
nJc
n
Lost
ock
Jcn
Bol
ton
Wes
tJcn
Bre
wer
yJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kW
estJ
cnB
agul
eyFo
ldJc
n
Phi
lips
Par
kS
outh
Jcn
Ash
ton
Mos
sN
orth
Jcn
Hyd
eJc
nD
intin
gJc
ns
Win
dsor
Brid
geJc
ns
Hop
eS
treet
Wea
ste
bran
ch
Cro
wN
est
Jcn
Eux
ton
Jcn
Rou
te21
Alle
rton
Wes
tJcn
Hun
tsC
ross
Wes
tJcn
Huy
ton
Jcn
Rou
te18
Rou
te18
Win
wic
kJc
n
'Win
dsor
Link
'O
rdsa
llLa
neJc
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Jcn
TRA
FFO
RD
PAR
K
'Cas
tlefie
ldC
orrid
or'
Cas
tlefie
ldJc
nP
arks
ide
Jcn
Gol
born
eJc
n
Ard
wic
kJc
n
Sla
deLa
ne Jcn
Ash
bury
sW
estJ
cnA
SH
BUR
YS A
shbu
rys
Eas
tJc
n
Mile
sP
latti
ngJc
n
Rou
te22
Mic
kle
Traf
ford
Jcn
Rou
te21
Edg
eH
illE
astJ
cnB
ootle
Bra
nch
Jcn
SE
AFO
RTH
Mar
ple
Wha
rfJc
nN
ewM
illsS
outh
Jcn
Rou
te11
Rou
te11
Hea
ldG
reen
Jcns
Syd
ney
Brid
geJc
n
Rou
te14
Nor
thw
ich
Jcns
Bru
nner
Mon
dLo
stoc
kWor
ks
Har
tford
Jcns
Oak
leig
hB
runn
erM
ond
Rou
te11
Edg
eley
Jcns
GM
Was
te
Bre
dbur
y
Nor
then
den
&G
MW
aste
Par
tingt
on
PR
EST
ON
Leyl
and
WIG
AN
NO
RTH
WE
STE
RN
BLA
CK
BU
RN
Cor
usTr
ack
Pro
duct
s/
Eas
tLan
csR
ailw
ay
Bam
furlo
ngJc
n
Bla
ckbu
rnYa
rd
Hea
ton
Nor
risJc
n
Mid
dlew
ich
Sal
tTe
rmin
al
Hay
sC
hem
ical
sP
ilkin
gton
Pen
dlet
onTe
rmin
als
and
GM
Was
te
Live
rpoo
lC
oalT
erm
inal
Den
ton
Jcn
Rom
iley
Jcn
Miln
erR
oyd
Jcn
Hal
lRoy
dJc
n
Gre
etla
ndJc
n
Dry
clou
ghJc
n
Bra
dley
Jcn
Rou
te23
Rou
te18
Rou
te11
Rou
te8
Rou
te18
Rou
te8
Run
corn
East
Frod
sham
CR
EWE
WIG
AN
BOLT
ON
SALF
OR
DC
RES
CEN
T
RO
CH
DAL
E
GU
IDE
BRID
GE
HAD
FIEL
D
Din
ting
GLO
SSO
P
NEW
MIL
LSC
ENTR
AL
RO
SEH
ILL
MAR
PLE
DEA
NSG
ATE
STO
CKP
OR
T
BUXT
ON
MAN
CH
ESTE
RAI
RPO
RT
WAR
RIN
GTO
NC
ENTR
AL
WIL
MSL
OW
CH
EAD
LEH
ULM
E
MAN
CH
ESTE
RPI
CC
ADIL
LY
MAN
CH
ESTE
RVI
CTO
RIA
LIVE
RPO
OLLI
ME
STR
EET
MO
ULD
SWOR
TH
NAV
IGAT
ION
RO
AD
ALTR
INC
HAM
EAR
LEST
OW
N
HEB
DEN
BRID
GE
BRAD
FOR
DIN
TER
CH
ANG
E
HU
DD
ERSF
IELD
Sow
erby
Brid
ge
STAL
YBR
IDG
E
SHEF
FIEL
D
STO
KE-O
N-T
REN
T
LEED
S
WAK
EFIE
LDKI
RKG
ATE
WAK
EFIE
LDW
ESTG
ATE
CH
ESTE
R
ELLS
MER
EPO
RT
HEL
SBY
WAR
RIN
GTO
NBA
NK
QUA
Y
HAL
IFAX
Mos
tonM
illsH
ill
Cas
tleto
n
Den
ton
Hyd
eN
orth
Hyd
eC
entra
l
Woo
dley
Rom
iley
Mar
ple
Strin
es
OLD
HA
M
ASH
TON
-UN
DE
R-L
YN
E
Edge
Hill
Wav
ertre
eTe
chno
logy
Park Br
oad
Gre
en
Rob
y Huy
ton
LIVE
RPO
OLSO
UTH
PAR
KWAY
Wes
tAlle
rton
Mos
sley
Hill
Hun
tsC
ross Hal
ewoo
dHou
ghG
reen
Wid
nesSa
nkey
Padg
ate
Birc
hwoo
dW
hist
onR
ainh
illLe
aG
reen
StH
elen
sJu
nctio
n
New
ton-
le-
Willo
ws
Patri
crof
tM
anch
este
rO
xfor
dR
oad
Ashb
urys
Belle
Vue
Hea
ton
Cha
pel
Leve
nshu
lme
Ryd
erBr
owR
eddi
shN
orth
Brin
ning
ton
Bred
bury
Red
dish
Sout
hGor
ton Fa
irfie
ld
Flow
ery
Fiel
d New
ton
forH
ydeG
odle
y Hat
ters
ley
Broa
dbot
tom
Eccl
es
Ardw
ick
Gla
zebr
ook
Irlam
Flix
ton C
hass
enR
oad
Urm
ston
Hum
phre
yPa
rk
Traf
ford
Park
Burn
age Ea
stD
idsb
ury
Hal
eAs
hley
Mob
berle
yKn
utsf
ord
Lost
ock
Gra
lam
Plum
ley
Nor
thw
ich
Cud
ding
ton
Gre
enba
nk
Del
amer
e
Gat
ley
Sand
bach
Hol
mes
Cha
pel
Goo
stre
y
Che
lford
Alde
rley
Edge
Han
dfor
thSt
yal
Hea
ldG
reen
Dav
enpo
rt
Haz
elG
rove
Mid
dlew
ood
Dis
ley
New
Mills
New
tow
nFu
rnes
sVal
eW
hale
yBr
idge
Cha
pel-e
n-le
-Frit
hD
ove
Hol
es
Woo
dsm
oor
Mau
ldet
hR
oad
Cho
rley
Adlin
gton
Blac
krod
Hor
wic
hPa
rkw
ay
Lost
ock
Ince
Hin
dley
Wes
thou
ghto
n
Dar
wen
Entw
istle
Brom
ley
Cro
ss
Hal
li’Th
’Woo
d
Swin
ton
Moo
rsid
e
Wal
kden
Athe
rton
Hag
Fold
Dai
syH
ill
Farn
wor
thM
oses
Gat
e Kear
sley Clif
ton
Salfo
rdC
entra
l
Myt
holm
royd
Todm
orde
nW
alsd
enLi
ttleb
orou
ghSm
ithy
Brid
ge
Brig
hous
e
Dei
ghto
n
Mos
sley
Gre
enfie
ld
Mar
sden
Slai
thw
aite
Long
port
Bram
hall
Con
glet
on
Mac
cles
field
Pres
tbur
y
Adlin
gton
Poyn
ton
Kids
grov
e
Chi
nley Ed
ale Ba
mfo
rdG
rindl
efor
dH
athe
rsag
e
Hop
e
Figure 4.3 Rail corridors
5.1 Conditional outputsThe Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement1identified the key outputs that were to be addressed.Figure 5.1 summarises the requirements and identifieshow these relate into gaps.
Chapter 5
Gaps and options
4342 Chapter 5: Gaps and options
1. Capacity and flexibilityAdequate capacity needs to be provided toaccommodate Trend growth to 2019/20 in longerdistance, commuting and other local rail journeys, withaverage crowding being no greater than implied by thecapacity metrics for 2013/14 for Manchester in theDepartment for Transport’s 2007 High Level OutputSpecification (HLOS) for the rail industry.
For the Trend scenario after 2019/20 and in relation tothe Trend Plus scenario, the identified Manchester Hubproposal should be ‘future-proofed’ to accommodatethese higher growth rates without a requirement forfurther major infrastructure works beyond the identifiedproposals but through measures such as trainlengthening.
2. Carbon reductionThe net effect of the Manchester Hub proposals on theoverall carbon trajectory for the transport sector whichin due course will be adopted by Government should bedemonstrated.
If possible, the effect of Manchester Hub in terms of in-service operation should be to contribute to thetrajectory of reduced carbon emissions as set innational level overall targets for the transport sector.
3. PerformanceNetwork performance should be such that delayminutes on franchised services in the Manchester areawill not be worsened by meeting the Manchester HubConditional Outputs and that the performance offranchised rail services in the Manchester area is keptconsistent with the High Level Output Specification andin line with targets set nationally.
In respect of Airport services, as the available evidenceis that good reliability and performance is of particularsignificance to encourage rail use by airline passengers,the conditional requirement is to improve performancefurther as a priority.
The level of crowding at the end of 2014 is specified in theHLOS, and the industry has identified a need for a greaternumber of peak vehicle arrivals to meet that. Furtherpassenger growth is predicted beyond 2014, and for thecapacity metrics to be met, further peak vehicle arrivalswill be required in the HLOS that will cover the period to2029.
This gap needs to be addressed by further peak vehiclearrivals.
Subject to a separate analysis of the carbon impact in theappraisal.
Interventions in Control Period 4 (CP4) will address this.The Manchester Hub interventions must at worst beperformance neutral.
The creation of the third platform at Manchester Airport inControl Period 3 (CP3) along with the CP4 performanceplans will have a major impact by 2014. Manchester Hubinterventions should seek further resilience.
Requirement Gap
1Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement, The Northern Way, April 2009
Figure 5.1 Gaps vs. Conditional Outputs
44 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 45
4. Journey timesThese are target journey times for the key corridors,from a Manchester City Centre station (either Victoriaor Piccadilly) to the principal adjoining city regions:
• Leeds 40 minutes
• Bradford 50 minutes
• Sheffield 40 minutes
• Chester 40 minutes
• Liverpool 30 minutes
• Preston 30 minutes.
5. Growth centres in Greater ManchesterFrom each principal rail corridor to each sub-area withinthe Regional Centre there should be either a direct railservice or a service that requires no more than a singleinterchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink orMetroshuttle.
From each principal rail corridor to each of the key towncentres, there should be either a direct rail service or aservice that requires no more than a single interchange,by rail or Metrolink.
From each principal rail corridor to Salford Quays thereshould be a service that requires no more than a singleinterchange by bus or Metrolink
6. Connectivity to deliver economic benefitsAll principal corridors to be connected if possible to thesame station in Manchester city centre for easypassenger transfer (or through cross Manchesteroperation), as well as other central area stationsappropriate to the travel market.
The improved connectivity should therefore be used:
• (a) where possible, to promote direct cross citymovements (for which train service provision and hencefranchising costs will also generally experience costefficiencies), or
• (b) where this cannot be done, to facilitate convenientpassenger interchange. This is best done at a singleManchester city centre station to avoid circuitous, timeconsuming/counter-intuitive routeing.
The current public times are shown below.
54 minutes2
60 minutes
48 minutes
63 minutes
47 minutes2
39 minutes
The Calder Valley does not link to the Village
Calder Valley does not give a link to Stockport
Calder Valley does not reach the Metrolink service toEccles for connection to Salford Quays
Calder Valley services do not reach Manchester Piccadilly,all others do.
Not all corridors connect to the same single station.
Requirement Gap
7. Manchester AirportThe requirement is for direct services of at least hourlyinterval service frequency in each of the principalcorridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire andthe Humber and North East via Leeds corridor)…
… on a 7 day/week basis …
… with service start and finish time giving 95% of airpassengers the option of using rail for their journeys toor from the airport
8. Trans PennineLeeds – Manchester a 15 minute interval service (orbetter)
Sheffield – Manchester a 20 minute service interval
Bradford/Halifax – Manchester a 30 minute serviceinterval
9. North South Links and High Speed RailTo meet forecasts and requirements for a doubling ofWest Coast Main Line demand by 2026
… with such provision as indicated as being appropriateby the National Networks Strategy Group, toaccommodate High Speed 2 (HS2) options to andbeyond central Manchester, together with a possibleparkway station
10. FreightProvision for a doubling of freight tonnage from existingand new origins and destinations to/from the multi-modal terminals at Trafford Park and elsewhere in theNorth West by 2030.
The Calder Valley, Chester and the CLC have no directservice to Manchester Airport, and the corridor to thesouth has only got one if the local service from Crewe iscounted as sufficient.
Not a gap
This implies either a constant availability of services forarrivals between 03:00 and 00:00 or constant arrivalsother than for periodic longer closures. The currentmaintenance regime allows periodic longer closures thatmeet this level of infrastructure availability. However,services are currently not specified to meet the levelrequired.
Currently 4 trains per hour (tph) – a few minutes offeven interval
Currently 30 minute interval
Currently 2 tph a few minutes off interval
Current West Coast Main Line (WCML) capacityinsufficient but being addressed by WCML RouteUtilisation Strategy (RUS) and work at Stafford
The subsequent guidance from the Department forTransport (DfT) was that the Hub Should not closeoff options.
Additional paths will be required
Requirement Gap
2Note excludes improvements resulting from the Trans Pennine linespeedimprovement scheme works in CP4
5.2. Gaps in capacityThe Conditional Output Statement identified expectedgrowth in rail demand. In order to accommodate thatgrowth and still maintain the HLOS crowding metricsadditional vehicles will be required. These vehicles couldbe used to extend the length of existing services, orcould be used to operate additional services.
There have been concerns regarding demandforecasting of commuter flows into Northern cities.Recent rail forecasting work carried out by DfT withNorthern Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) hasshown that previous forecasts tend to underestimategrowth on commuter routes. This work, whilst not yetcomplete, appears to support growth in excess of the“Trend” scenario and the output when complete willform an input to the Northern RUS.
Failure to deliver the forecast capacity into Northerncities will constrain their growth.
5.3 Gaps in journey timeThe Conditional Output Statement specifies six destinationsjourney times fromManchester, with improvements rangingfrom between eight and 23minutes depending on thecorridor. Addressing these will involve identifying value formoney interventions to addressmaximum speeds, slowspeed restrictions and stopping patterns.
5.4 Gaps in growth centres and connectivityin Greater ManchesterThe gaps in the area of growth centres in Manchester CityCentre principally relate to the fact that the Calder Valleycorridor does not connect with the locations and corridorsthat are not accessible fromManchester Victoria.
5.5 Gaps in connectivityThe Phase One work identified that connectivity is asignificant driver of economic benefit. Improvedconnectivity comes from existing services to Manchesterworking through to a destination beyond, new servicescreating new links across the centre of Manchester andgood interchange to improve connections. Currentlythere are inter-regional services that come toManchester and stop, there are inter-regional centresthat are not linked, and the interchange at Piccadillyhas to allow for time to travel between the main trainshed and the island platforms.
5.6 Gaps in airport linksThere are two gaps in respect of Manchester Airport.
• The CLC and Calder Valley corridors do not have athrough link to Manchester Airport
• The service provision does not allow 95 percent of airpassengers the opportunity to use rail for their journeysto and from the airport.
Data fromManchester Airport indicates that the level ofarrivals at ‘kerbside’ at Manchester Airport is shown inFigure 5.2, which is the time air passengers choose to arrivefor flights or depart having landed atManchester Airport.
Analysis of Figure 5.2 identifies that if all passengers ina period of time, on every day of the year have accessto a service, then 95 percent availability means thatservices must arrive and depart between 03.00 hoursand midnight or that services run 24 hours a day andthe infrastructure would need to be available for 95percent of the year.
Analysis of the existing possession regime shows thatthe network is currently available for 95 percent of thetime. As such the infrastructure is available to meet thisconditional output should service specifiers identify thebusiness case to take up the opportunity. Current use ofovernight services reflects the impact of journey timesby road during the uncongested late hours.
5.7 The gap in specified trans Penninefrequencies.The specified frequency for Leeds and Bradford are metand the services are almost on pattern, and can bemade to be so. The gap for these corridors is aboutmaintaining the existing pattern. For the Hope Valleycorridor the specification is for 20 minute frequencywhen there are only two services an hour currently.
5.8 Gap for north south routes, and highspeed railThis issue is wider than theManchester Hub, and otherwork is being progressed elsewhere to address it. As suchthe requirements theWest Coast Main Line have beenbased on the separate work being undertaken by NetworkRail and the timetable associated with the enhancementof theWest Coast Main Line in the Stafford area.
46 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 47
In terms of being able to accommodate High Speedoptions to and beyond central Manchester, togetherwith a possible parkway station, the guidance from theDfT has been for the recommendations not to close offpossible options for high speed rail.
5.9 Gap for freightFor freight the conditional output concentrated oncontainer traffic, and specified a doubling of tonnage.The container terminal on the Hub area is Trafford Parkwith Seaforth adjacent to the geographic scope andwith planned new terminals at Port Salford and Parkside,on the Chat Moss route between Newton-le-Willows andPatricroft.
Currently there is broadly only one path an hour forcontainer traffic to Trafford Park. The gap has beentaken to be creating a second path in the standard hourto and from Trafford Park, providing two paths an hourto Liverpool docks and to make sure that there is scopefor freight to get to Port Salford and/or Parkside. Thisprovides sufficient capacity to meet the rail industry2030 freight forecasts.
5.10 Options to address gaps5.10.1 “Do nothing”
The “do nothing” option is to carry on as now, and thatthere is no change to the service provided, both in termsof timetable and train length. This means then trainswill become more crowded, people will not be able totravel and the crowding targets no longer be met. Thisruns contrary to current Government policy and doesnot meet the challenge of the conditional outputs sohas not been taken further.
5.10.2 “Do minimum”The “do minimum” option is to provide sufficientadditional vehicles for existing services such that thegovernment’s crowding targets continue to be met intothe future. As well as the additional vehicles and theirpeak mileage, there would necessarily be associatedworks such as platform lengthening to accommodatethe longer trains and depot and stabling works to allowthe trains to be kept on the network. As mentioned insection 3.5 the analysis indicates that this trainlengthening would in Control Period 5 (CP5) platformrequire additional platforms at Manchester Airport andManchester Piccadilly. This provision of extra capacityfor people on trains is very important but withoutfurther improvements much of the potential benefit ismissed. The Phase One study identified this crowdingrelief represents only 18 percent of the potentialbenefits.
5.10.3 “Do more”The challenge for the Northern economy, as identifiedby the Phase One study requires improvements beyondthe “do minimum” in order to capture benefits to theNorthern economy. It is the operation of an increasedlevel of service with a wider range of through linkages,
better connections and infrastructure enhancements toallow that pattern to operate.
It is clear from the Theory of Constraints work thatrunning such additional services cannot be donewithout providing new infrastructure, and that there isno single intervention that provides the solution,meaning a strategy of interventions will be required.The particular interventions required depend on thepattern of services chosen to meet the outputs – somedepend on the nature of services on particular radialroutes and some will depend on how services are routedacross the centre.
5.10.4 Interface between “Do Minimum” and “Do more”In dealing with peak crowding the “do minimum”option lengthens peak trains and adds incrementaladditional peak services. The improved frequencies ofthe “do more” option also require additional vehicles. Itcould be that the additional vehicles required for theimproved frequencies are at the wrong time and placeto meet the crowding metric of the “do minimum”option. This would mean that all the vehicles for theincreased frequency are in addition to any required formeeting HLOS. This pessimistic view has been assumedfor the purposes of the economic analysis.
Alternatively, it could be that the additional vehicles forthe increased all-day frequency are at the right timeand place to help address crowding in the peak. Ineffect using the benefits of the increased frequenciesand a wider range of through workings could help tomeet the crowding metric. In this case the additionalvehicle lease cost and the peak mileage would not beattributable to the Hub scheme. This optimisation willbe progressed with stakeholders in later developmentstages for the Manchester Hub.
5.11 Analysis of strategic optionsHaving identified the gaps in the rail services and takinginto account the capacity gaps identified, a range ofinfrastructure interventions was identified to provide thecapability for rail service improvements to address thesegaps and deliver the benefits.
These infrastructure interventions are required toaddress the issues of capacity and capability in thecentre of Manchester and on the radial routes. Fulldetails of all the infrastructure interventions consideredare shown in Appendix B. In many instances there wasmore than one way of providing the capability andalternatives were only progressed to the point where itwas clear which was better for the circumstances beingconsidered.
Figure 5.2 Demand at kerb-side (source Manchester Airport)
5.11.1 The centre of ManchesterThere are three key issues to be addressed in the centralarea:
East West and North South services crossing on theapproach to Piccadilly
Manchester Piccadilly platform capacity
Capacity to cross Manchester via the Castlefieldcorridor.
5.11.2 Crossing moves on the approach to ManchesterPiccadillyThe congestion at Manchester Piccadilly comes fromcrossing moves from two main sources: trains goingbetween Platforms 13 and 14 and Ashburys (and, to alesser extent, Hazel Grove), and trains going betweenManchester Airport and Ashburys (and, to a lesserextent, Hazel Grove). Both sets of trains cross the wholelayout between Ardwick and Manchester Piccadilly.Conceptually there are two main options to overcomethe congestion from the crossing moves:
• option 1 - grade separation of some sort such that trainsmaking the move are not interacting with trains goingbetween the train shed and Stockport, or
• option 2 - physical rerouteing such that there are nocrossing moves between Manchester Piccadilly andArdwick through rerouteing of inter-regional services toManchester Victoria and provision of a link betweenManchester Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly and thenceManchester Airport through the Ordsall Chord.
48 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 49
The solution of grade separation on the approaches toPiccadilly continues to have all the existing services onbroadly their existing pattern, and Manchester Piccadillyremains the prime focus of rail connections. The lattersolution of rerouteing changes the emphasis such thatboth Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoriabecome important interchange stations. These optionsare shown diagrammatically at figures 5.10, 5.11, 5.12and 5.13.
Analysis of the crossingmoves associated with each of theoptions indicates that only the Ardwick Flyover, or diversionof services to Manchester Victoria with an Ordsall Chordallow delivery of the service specification. The ArdwickEastern Flyover was a variation on the Ardwick Flyover thatwas considered. Whilst having a reduced capital cost overthe original version, with the new service level it had agreater level of conflicts than currently and therefore didnot provide the necessary capacity.
5.11.3 Manchester Piccadilly platform occupancyPlatform occupation at Manchester Piccadilly is an issueas operating longer trains restricts the ability to operatemultiple trains in one platform. Trains from many of thecorridors do have the option of being directed at eitherManchester Piccadilly or Manchester Victoria. However,a key constraint is that traffic from Manchester Airportand from Warrington Central must go to ManchesterPiccadilly.
Overcoming platform occupation congestion atManchester Piccadilly points to three potential options:
• creating more platform capacity by freeing up access tothe existing poorly used platforms (9 - 12) to makebetter use of them, this delivers most capacity whenlinked to the Ardwick Flyover
• providing more platform capacity by creating additionalplatforms to the east of the current platforms, whichfacilitates an Ardwick Eastern Flyover
• or reducing the need for more platforms by diverting thetrans Pennine trains to Manchester Victoria. This involvestrains to Manchester Airport using an Ordsall Chord.
5.11.4 Cross Manchester FlowsThe ability to path flows across Manchester isconstrained by the capacity of two key corridors: theCastlefield corridor and Manchester Victoria. Asidentified by section 3.5.3 the capacity on theCastlefield corridor is constrained by the ManchesterPiccadilly through platforms.
On the Castlefield corridor provision of two additionalthrough platforms at Manchester Piccadilly immediatelyto the south of the existing platforms 13 and 14, henceknown as 15 and 16, allows trains to arrive in oneplatform while another train is departing in the samedirection from another. This intervention with minorworks at Manchester Oxford Road to operate in thesame manner increases the effective capacity to allowtrains to be planned to run three minutes apart ratherthan the existing four minutes apart.
As an alternative the removal of the two freight pathsby diverting freight traffic to the west out of TraffordPark to allow more passenger services on the CastlefieldCorridor was evaluated. This would involve a newentrance to allow all services to arrive and depart fromthe west and a link to the WCML from the CLC corridoreither via Glazebrook and Kenyon or Padgate andDallam. This option was significantly more costly thanthe additional through platforms at ManchesterPiccadilly and as such was not progressed at this stage.It does however remain an option should growth justifyfurther enhancement at a later stage.
Capacity at Manchester Victoria is currently constrainedby the use of through platforms for terminating trains.This can be addressed by increased use of throughworking services or by creation of west facing bayplatforms to the north of the layout. The capacity of thethrough platforms can be improved through adifferential linespeed of 35mph for passenger trains,which reduces the current planning headway from threeminutes to two minutes.
Whilst rerouteing North trans Pennine – ManchesterAirport services through Manchester Victoria does avoidthe crossing move conflicts at Manchester Piccadilly,such services do use up capacity both on the Castlefieldcorridor and at Manchester Victoria. Thus for someservices there is a trade-off between capacity atManchester Piccadilly and cross – Manchester capacity.
5.11.5 Radial RoutesThe service pattern and consequent corridorinterventions that were modelled were broadly thesame for each option. For many of the long distance orinter-regional services there was interaction betweenadjacent areas in the analysis of options. For each ofthe corridors the following interventions were identified;
Figure 5.3 Schematic showing existing crossing movesat Manchester Piccadilly North trans Pennine –Manchester Airport (green) and North trans Pennine -Liverpool (red)
Figure 5.4 Schematic showing impact of an Ardwick –Slow lines Flyover on crossing moves at ManchesterPiccadilly: North trans Pennine – Manchester Airport(green) and North trans Pennine - Liverpool (red)
Figure 5.6 Schematic showing impact of re-routing awayfrom Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria thecrossing services: North trans Pennine – Manchester Airport(green) and trans Pennine and Sheffield - Liverpool (red)
Figure 5.5 Schematic showing impact of ArdwickEastern Flyover - a Fast lines – New East lines flyover oncrossing moves at Manchester Piccadilly: North transPennine – Manchester Airport (green) and North transPennine – Liverpool (red)
• For the services from the south
- additional services have been routed to othercorridors to avoid costly interventions betweenEdgeley and Ardwick.
• For the Sheffield services, and East Manchester services,
- doubling Dore Station Jn to Dore West Jn and loopsat Grindleford to let extra fast trains run betweenSheffield/East Midlands and cities in the north west;these services would operate in pairs half hourly
- loops at Chinley to allow the extra fast trains to besent via Marple, thereby avoiding constraintsbetween Edgeley and Slade Lane. Such loops wouldallow commuter services to be extended to Chinleyfrom New Mills Central and or Hazel Grove
- for the Manchester Piccadilly based solution thelevel of service at Ashburys required four tracking ofAshburys - Guide Bridge; whereas a ManchesterVictoria based solution required linespeedimprovements on the Marple line, but by taking theNorth trans Pennine services away from theAshburys – Guide Bridge corridor this option leavesflexibility for more commuter services there.
• On the North trans Pennine route from the North East,Yorkshire and the Humber
- to facilitate an increased frequency and hencerunning fast services an additional loop is requiredat Dewsbury and four-tracking between Diggle andMarsden using the disused bores of Standege tunnel
- the new bay platform at Stalybridge created in CP4allows flexibility in operating commuter services toManchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly withthis higher frequency inter-regional service.
• For the Calder Valley
- to facilitate increased frequency of inter-regionalservices a bay platform is required at Rochdale,which facilitates an increased frequency orcommuter services.
• On the route to Bolton and Preston
- none, as additional inter-regional services fromPreston are routed via the Chat Moss route andWest Coast Main Line.
- this provides scope to adjust stopping patterns ofthe remaining services to reflect the needs of thecommuter railway.
• On the route to Liverpool
- to achieve the fastest journey time at least twointer-regional services go via the Chat Moss route.The Manchester Victoria based option involves allfast trains being routed this way, which combinedwith the need to overtake the stopping service led tofour tracking between Roby – Huyton and abolitionof the level crossing at Astley. In opting to enhance
the service around Manchester Piccadilly only twofast services went via the Chat Moss route, whichrequires signalling work in the Roby area.
• On the route to Chester via Chat Moss
- none
• On the route via Northwich
- none, existing infrastructure allows a doubling ofservices to Altrincham.
5.11.6 Journey time improvementsIn considering the opportunity to achieve the journeytime target between Manchester and Liverpool; it wasidentified that with electrification in CP4 improving thespeed of local services and raising to 90 mph the linespeed between Huyton and Astley signal box fast servicesare provided with the opportunity for a 33 minutejourney time between Liverpool Lime Street andManchester Victoria or Manchester Oxford Road. Whilstthe trans Pennine linespeed scheme would be developedand implemented in CP4 it was pessimistically assumedthat the costs of this linespeed improvement would beincluded in the Hub appraisal.
On the North trans Pennine route the scheme to deliverjourney time improvements for trains from the NorthEast, West Yorkshire and the Humber was notsufficiently developed to provide a baseline for analysis.This aspect of the Hub intervention will be reviewedonce the scheme identifies a single option for delivery inCP4, which is expected to be in June 2010, to establishthe further improvements that can be justified. Howeverthe impact of the capacity interventions at Dewsburyand between Marsden and Diggle is designed toimprove journey times by providing the opportunity fora pattern of four fast and two semi-fast services.
Value for money opportunities were identified forincremental journey time improvements to/from SouthYorkshire/East Midlands of up to five minutes based oncovering the cost of the intervention. On other corridorsincremental linespeed improvements may be availableby combination with plain line track renewals, which willbe reviewed on an ongoing basis by Network Rail duringCP4. On all corridors it is important to note that aspassenger numbers grow the business case for furtherincremental linespeed improvements will improve.
5.11.7 Strategic optionsThe results of this analysis produce two strategicoptions for addressing the challenges of the ManchesterHub based around the interventions in the central area;Option 1 to allow greater use of Manchester Piccadillyand Option 2 to allow greater use of ManchesterVictoria. For each option a list of the interventions and adiagram showing their locations is overleaf:
50 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 51
• Option 1 (see Figure 5.7)
- Ardwick Flyover
- Platforms 15 &16 at Manchester piccadilly withimproved access to Platforms 9 - 12
- Four track Ashburys – Guide Bridge
- Signalling improvements at Roby
- Manchester Oxford Road platform and signallingimprovements
- Chinley loops
- Grindleford loops
- Dore Jn redoubling
- Four track Marsden – Diggle
- Dewsbury Up Loop
- Chat Moss route linespeed improvements
- Manchester Airport additional platform
- Rochdale bay platform
• Option 2 (see Figure 5.8)
- Platforms 15 & 16 at Manchester Piccadilly
- Improved headways at Manchester Victoria
- Manchester Victoria western bay platforms
- Improved passenger environment at ManchesterVictoria station
- Ordsall Chord
- Marple linespeed improvements
- Four track Broad Green - Huyton
- Oxford Road platform and signalling improvements
- Chinley loops
- Grindleford loops
- Dore Jn redoubling
- Four track Marsden – Diggle
- Dewsbury Up Loop
- Signalling headway improvements on the ChatMoss route at Astley
- Chat Moss route linespeed improvements
- Manchester Airport additional platform
- Rochdale bay platform
5.11.8 Manchester city centreFurther analysis of ultimate destinations in the citycentre was carried out by Greater Manchester PassengerTransport Executive (GMPTE). This showed that theability to reach all of Manchester Piccadilly, ManchesterOxford Road and Manchester Victoria from all of thecorridors produced an overall benefit.
The potential to unlock regeneration benefits through a15 minute frequency service serving ManchesterVictoria, Salford Central, Manchester Oxford Road andManchester Piccadilly from Manchester Airport wasnoted if platforms were reinstated on the Liverpool linesat Salford Central. It is noted that stakeholders believeSalford Central could unlock significant regenerationbenefit and this could form an aspect of the furtherfeasibility.
5.11.9 Opportunities for service improvementsThe two strategic options provide the opportunity toimprove rail services across the North to meet thechallenges identified. A test timetable was developed toallow the appraisal of the strategic options, which isshown in Appendix C, but should not be taken asjustification for a particular timetable at this stage. Thedetails of the opportunities presented by the preferredoption are shown in Chapter 8.
Inter-regional/trans Pennine frequencies and journeytimes
• The two options provide the opportunity for thefrequencies specified in the conditional outputs toLeeds (six trains per hour) and Bradford (two trains perhour). In the case of Sheffield for four trains per hourbut that these would run as two pairs, one each fromSouth Yorkshire and the East Midlands, to facilitate thefreight flows on the Hope Valley.
• The two strategies provide the opportunity forsignificant improvement in frequency of trans Pennineservices across the North. This greater frequency reducesthe waiting time for passengers, which is reflected inimprovements to the generalised journey time.
• The potential for additional services to run on the radialroutes and across Manchester city centre providesopportunities for additional direct connections acrossthe North. For example with up to six fast/semi-fastservices on the North trans Pennine route this givesadditional direct connections that could be madecompared to the current timetable. Connections thatmight be considered include Chester to Leeds, Sheffieldto Preston etc.
• The opportunity to increase the frequency of servicesalso presents the opportunity for improved connectionswhere direct links are not utilised, which can furtherimprove a passenger’s journey time.
• Significant opportunities for journey time improvementsare available through both options. All journeys toLiverpool benefit from reduced journey times on theChat Moss route. Journeys from Sheffield and the East
52 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 53
Figure 5.8 Option 2 interventionsFigure 5.7 Option 1 interventions
Midlands have the opportunity to benefit from up tofive minutes improvement. In Option 2 passengers fromYorkshire, the North East and Humber benefit from afive minutes reduction in journey time to Manchesterand their onward journey from routeing via ManchesterVictoria, except for Manchester Airport where routeingvia Ordsall is four minutes longer than in Option 1.
Key commuter corridors• The opportunity exists to increase the frequency of
service on many key corridors both in the peak and off-peak. This is particularly the case with Option 2 wherethe simplification of the operation at ManchesterPiccadilly and the freeing up of platforms at ManchesterPiccadilly presents the opportunity for additionalservices from south and east Manchester.
• Recognising that many commuter flows are not into thecity centre, the options in providing additional capacityacross Manchester provide the potential for morecommuter services linking destinations across the citycentre.
• The ability to increase the frequency of commuterservices presents the opportunity to adjust the stoppingpatterns of services to allow faster journeys, in additionto benefits from the linespeed improvements referencedunder trans Pennine services.
• In Option 2 the ability exists to improve journeys toManchester city centre by operating services that call atManchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road andManchester Piccadilly on the way to ManchesterAirport. Indeed if platforms were provided on theLiverpool lines at Salford Central this station could beincluded.
• By providing a link from the Calder Valley corridor toManchester Piccadilly the opportunity exists for allprincipal corridors to access all sub areas by only oneinterchange see 4.3.6.1.
• The capacity that has been created could be used forservices to East Pennine Lancashire if the additionalinfrastructure at Darwen and/or Todmorden curve werefunded.
• To the east of Huddersfield the opportunity exists totake advantage of the capacity created by the loop atDewsbury.
Manchester Airport• The options allow for the provision of more direct trains
to Manchester Airport and potentially moredestinations as referenced in the conditional outputs.Therefore the ability to create direct connections todestinations such as Bradford, Chester and Liverpool. InOption 2 the connection from the Calder Valley corridoris direct via the Ordsall Chord, while in Option 1 itinvolves a reversal at Salford Crescent.
• In Option 2 most of the services from ManchesterPiccadilly to Manchester Airport will operate fromplatforms 13-16 making the journey easier forpassengers.
• In Option 2 the simplification of the service pattern atManchester Piccadilly indicates a performanceimprovement which, it is suggested, is particularlyimportant to passengers travelling to an airport foronwards flights.
Freight• The options provide the capability to double the
number of paths from the West Coast Main Line toTrafford Park, which provides capacity to meet the railindustry 2030 freight forecasts.
• An hourly path is available on the Chat Moss route toserve the developments at Port Salford and Parkside.
5.12 Future opportunities remainingThe options taken forward in the strategy do not exhaustthe potential future capacity of the rail network in theHub area even given the further development workrecommended on the linespeed interventions and on theinterface with electrification strategy. Indeed even thetwo strategic options should not be seen as mutuallyexclusive. Once one is selected to form the base of thestrategy elements of the other, either serviceimprovement and/or infrastructure, might be appropriate.
Looking forward as growth continues the furtherinfrastructure interventions might have a case includingthe following:
• a western link for freight services from Trafford Park,allowing a greater number of passenger services on theCastlefield corridor.
• the Ardwick Eastern Flyover (5.11.2) and associatedadditional platforms at Manchester Piccadilly if necessaryto provide for additional services from the south
• further interventions on the radial routes to facilitateimproved frequencies or journey times
• create park and ride schemes and station car parks tofacilitate the greater number of passengers being carried.
54 Chapter 5: Gaps and options 55
6.1 Strategy evaluationAn appraisal framework to assess the strategic optionswas developed and applied. This assessed the optionsfor:
• value for money
• affordability
• performance against the conditional outputs
• train performance
• disruption during construction and after commissioning
• opportunities for timing of their implementation
• impact of New Lines/HS2
As such the evaluation of the two strategic options wasbroken down as follows:
1. qualitative assessment of strategic options
2. achievement against the conditional outputs
3. economic appraisal.
6.2 Qualitative assessment of strategic optionsA number of elements of the options were assessedusing qualitative criteria. These were:
• train performance
• disruption during construction and after commissioning
• affordability and opportunities for timing theirimplementation
• impact of New Lines/HS2
6.2.1 Train performanceGiven the current Guide to Rail Investment Projects(GRIP) stage of the study it was inappropriate to carryout detailed timetable performance modelling usingRailsys. This is appropriate to GRIP stage 3 and beyond.An approach involving a structured evaluation byexperts facilitated by the Network Rail Performance andCapacity Allocation Team was undertaken. Thisapproach compared the relative performance of the twooptions at key constraints both against each other andagainst the December 2008 timetable. The results for
each location were then weighted according tohistorical data on reactionary delay at the constraint.
Option 1 was identified as likely to be similar or slightlyworse than the current timetable despite the additionalinfrastructure due to the increase of services aroundManchester Piccadilly. While provision of a flyoverremoves the crossing moves on the approaches conflictsremain at the platform ends and for traffic to/fromManchester Airport.
The analysis suggests that Option 2 is likely to performbetter than both Option 1 and the current timetable.This reflects the significant simplification of theoperation at Manchester Piccadilly with the removal ofcrossing moves on the approach and the operation ofthe station with platforms allocated to pairs of lines asfollows;
• platforms 1-4 to East Lines
• platforms 5-12 to Fast Lines
• platforms 13-16 to Slow Lines
However because Option 2 presents a radical change tothe pattern of service delivery, the impact at ManchesterVictoria and on the Chat Moss route should be exploredin detail in later GRIP stages.
6.2.2 Construction disruptionThe two strategic options share substantially the sameinterventions on the radial routes. Hence for purpose ofappraising the strategies the analysis of the disruptionto both adjacent land users and rail services, during theconstruction has focussed on the core area.
The impacts of the interventions in the core areaassociated with the two strategies have been assessedin terms of the disruption during construction and postcommissioning of the final scheme. This analysis issummarised in Figure 6.1.
The table clearly articulates that the greatest disruptionto adjacent land users is through the construction of theArdwick Flyover and platforms 15 & 16 at ManchesterPiccadilly. Both variants of the Piccadilly platformsscheme have been developed in discussion with thelocal authority and developer to establish synergy withthe proposed redevelopment of the land to the south.
The comparison between the alternative strategiestherefore focuses on the difference between the Ardwick
5756 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options
Chapter 6
Evaluation of strategic options
Flyover and Ordsall Chord. The impact of the OrdsallChord on the Inner Relief Road will need to be reviewedat a later GRIP stage. Passive provision in the road levelwas made when the Inner Relief Road was constructed;and the remainder of the scheme impacts on what isbroadly brown field land. The Ardwick Flyover on theother hand causes significant disruption to residential,office and light industrial land use between Ardwick andMayfield.
An important aspect of evaluating the two strategicoptions is the level of disruption caused to rail servicesduring the construction phase. Figures 6.2 and 6.3identify the major disruption associated with theinterventions in each option.
In Option 1 the significant works at ManchesterPiccadilly are estimated to require a number ofsignificant blockades preventing or severely limitingaccess to Manchester Piccadilly and the Castlefieldcorridor. Without the funding of additionalinfrastructure there is limited opportunity for diversionand the costs associated with such infrastructure havenot been included in the appraisal.
Option 2 is considerably less disruptive with the onlymajor blockades associated with the works to platforms15 & 16 at Manchester Piccadilly and the signallingcommissioning associated with the Ordsall Chord atCastlefield. Indeed the enhancements can beprogrammed to provide the improved capability on theroutes to Manchester Victoria first, for diversion ofservices while the works between Manchester Piccadillyand Castlefield Jn are carried out.
Hence the disruption to passengers and freight users ismarkedly lower in Option 2 than Option 1.
6.2.3 Affordability and timingWhen considering the differences between Option 1and Option 2 it is worth noting the importance of theinter relationship between the interventions atManchester Piccadilly in Option 1 and their potential totrigger the need for resignalling. Therefore, it is likelythat for Option 1 over £500 million of the capital costwould be required to be funded in one control period.
Option 2 presents the possibility of phasing theinterventions in an incremental manner. While thegreatest benefits will accrue to the economy only onearly delivery of the full strategy, the investments couldbe spread across control periods.
6.2.4 Impact of new lines/high speedThe Department for Transport (DfT) guidance for theManchester Hub study indicated that the preferredsolution should not close off options for a future highspeed line in Manchester. During the study period theNetwork Rail New Lines Study was published and HS2was in its development phase preparing their report forthe Secretary of State. While no specific details areavailable to this study from HS2 it is possible to createhypotheses for routeing options for a high speed line toreach central Manchester.
An approach from the south is most likely either on theexisting alignment having connected south ofStockport, or to either the east or west of the existingalignment. In the first case this might include anincremental phase of trains leaving a new line to theWest Midlands before an extension to Manchester isbuilt. It is also considered possible that a new line wouldrequire platforms that face to the south and to the north.
It is therefore highly unlikely that a high speed linewould approach Manchester Victoria given its location,the constraints of the station and nature of theapproaches. As such Option 2 does not close off anyoptions for a new line arriving in Manchester afterimplementation of the Hub solution.
If arriving on the existing railway from Stockport,Option 2 could be combined with the Eastern Flyover(see Chapter 5) to provide additional platforms atManchester Piccadilly. The impact of an Ardwick Flyoveris more problematic in this instance although notinsolvable provided provision is made at the designphase. Similarly an eastern approach would benefitfrom designing into Option 1 as the four tracking fromGuide Bridge would require provision for GC gaugevehicles and make use of elements of the EasternFlyover scheme.
A western approach to the city centre is unlikely toinvolve Manchester Piccadilly due to the congestednature of the land use and the slow approach over theCastlefield corridor. If an approach from the north aswell as the south is required an underground station ismost likely. As such neither strategic option closes offoptions for a new line.
In the light of the hypotheses, Option 2 does not closeoff any options and could compliment a line arrivingfrom Stockport with the Eastern Flyover. Option 1 neednot close off options if details of any proposed route areknown before detailed design and provision, eitheractive or passive, is made.
6.3 Performance against the conditionaloutputsIn the light of the value for money appraisals outlined inChapter 5 the table below details the level ofperformance of each of the strategic options againstthe conditional outputs.
58 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options 59
Ardwick Flyover
Manchester PiccadillyPlatforms 15&16 (bothvariants)
Manchester Oxford Road
Ordsall Chord
Manchester Victoriaheadways and new bayplatforms
Marple Line SpeedImprovements
Ashburys – Guide Bridgefour track
Disruption to property/businesses
Disruption to non-rail traffic
During construction After commissioning
Figure 6.1 Analysis of disruption to adjacent land use from the proposed interventions in central Manchester
Affects adjacent office site. Access toarches and adjacent business propertyobstructed. Potential disturbance to localresidents
Likely to close adjacent streets and majorroads
Car park & electricity substation affected
Impact on local road network for accessand materials supply
Railway arches affected
Adjacent streets affected for access withmaterials over limited period
Interface with local land owners includingthe Museum of Science and Industry
Disruption while building over theManchester Inner Relief Road.
Railway arches affected
Minor access to site issues
None
Minor access to site issues
None reinstates a former formation
Minor access to site issue
Adjacent office building may be preserved(estimated 3 metre clearance from newviaduct), but the site will be compromised.Access to arches and adjacent businessproperty obstructed
Partial/total closure of the street adjacent tothe railway.
Car park & electricity substation affected.Design is consistent with the proposedMayfield development.
Alterations to adjacent road network.
Releases platform 5 area for development
None
Interface with local land owners including theMuseum of Science and Industry
None, levels of Manchester Inner Relief Roadwere designed for this eventuality.
Railway arches
None
None
None
None
None
60 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options 61
Ardwick Flyover
Manchester PiccadillyPlatforms 15&16 and 9 to12 enhanced access
Ashburys – Guide Bridgefour track
Oxford Road
Disruption to rail services Diversion opportunities
During construction Option 1
Figure 6.2 Major disruption to rail services required by Option 1
Significant stage works to preserve parallel moves across the throat during construction. Aseries of major blockades will be required for slewing the slow lines, construction of the flyoverand connections at Manchester Piccadilly. Expected to trigger premature resignalling of theManchester Piccadilly area with the associated disruption.
Limited opportunities for diversion routes
Two stage construction, blockades required to connect 15 & 16 and to reconnect thereconstructed 13 & 14. Blockade required to remodel Piccadilly East Jn.
Divert traffic over 15 &16 while 13 &14 are reconstructed
A series of planned possessions to remodel track layout
Limited opportunities for diversion routes
Planned disruptive possessions to remodel track layout
Limited opportunities for diversion routes
1. Capacity andflexibility
Requirement
Objective Sub objective Generic to Option 1 Option 2both options specific specific
Figure 6.4 Achievement compared to conditional outputs
Adequate capacity needs to be providedto accommodate Trend growth to2019/20 in longer distance, commutingand other local rail journeys, withaverage crowding being no greater thanimplied by the capacity metrics for2013/14 for Manchester in theDepartment for Transport’s 2007 HighLevel Output Specification for the railindustry
For the Trend scenario after 2019/20and in relation to the Trend Plusscenario, the identified Manchester Hubproposal should be ‘future-proofed’ toaccommodate these higher growth rateswithout a requirement for further majorinfrastructure works beyond theidentified proposals but throughmeasures such as train lengthening
DeliveredAs identified inChapter 5 theadditional vehicles arelikely to complementthe additionalfrequencies andcapacity exists foradditional peakservices.
DeliveredThe strategy involvesrunning more ratherthan longer trains,thereby retaining afuture option tolengthen trains.
Ardwick Flyover,ManchesterPiccadilly platforms,loops, ManchesterAirport platforms,planned to be builtto adequate length.
Simplification ofservice pattern andreduced pressure onplatforms atManchesterPiccadilly presents agreater opportunityfor additional peakservices thanOption 1.
2. Carbonreduction
The net effect of the Manchester Hubproposals on the overall carbontrajectory for the transport sector whichin due course will be adopted byGovernment should be demonstrated.
See separate carbonassessment, Section6.4.4
- -
If possible, the effect of Manchester Hubin terms of in-service operation should beto contribute to the trajectory of reducedcarbon emissions as set in national leveloverall targets for the transport sector.
- -
Ordsall Chord, loops,Manchester Airportand ManchesterVictoria platforms,planned to be builtto adequate length.
Manchester PiccadillyPlatforms 15 & 16
Manchester Oxford Road
Ordsall Chord
Manchester Victoriaheadways and new bayplatforms
Marple LinespeedImprovements
Disruption to rail services Diversion opportunities
During construction Option 2
Figure 6.3 Major disruption to rail services required by Option 2
Blockades required to connect 15&16 Blockade required to remodel Piccadilly East Jn.
Some diversions via Victoria will be possible if the Ordsall Chord is constructed first.Divert traffic over 15 &16 while 13 &14 are reconstructed
36hr possessions to remodel track layout
Some diversions via Victoria will be possible if the Ordsall Chord is constructed.
Blockades required to connect affecting routes through Ordsall Lane Jn and Castlefield Jn
Limited opportunities for diversion routes
New platform works to require planned possessions of Down and Up Salford lines forconnections
Diversion via Down and Up Chat Moss lines available
Planned possessions.
Various diversions available.
3. Performance Network performance should be suchthat delay minutes on franchised servicesin the Manchester area will not beworsened by meeting the ManchesterHub Conditional Outputs and that theperformance of franchised rail services inthe Manchester area is kept consistentwith the High Level Output Specificationand in line with targets set nationally
See 6.2.2performanceassessmentconsistent or slightlyworse thanDecember 2008timetable.
See 6.2.2performanceassessmentimprovement onDecember 2008timetable.
In respect of Airport services, as theavailable evidence is that good reliabilityand performance is of particularsignificance to encourage rail use byairline passengers, the conditionalrequirement is to improve performancefurther as a priority
Additionalplatform(s) atManchester Airportmitigateperformance risk dueto increase in thenumber of services
Airport services fromthe east havecrossing moves inthe ManchesterPiccadilly areareduced.
Airport services fromthe east have crossingmoves in theManchester Piccadillyarea removed, butcrossingmoves remainat Ordsall Jn andCastlefield Jn.
62 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options 63
5. Growthcentres inGreaterManchester
Requirement
Objective Sub objective Generic to Option 1 Option 2both options specific specific
From each principal rail corridor to eachsub-area within the Regional Centrethere should be either: a direct railservice; or a service that requires no morethan a single interchange for onwardtravel by rail, Metrolink or Metroshuttle.
From each principal rail corridor to eachof the key town centres, there should beeither, a direct rail service, or a servicethat requires no more than a singleinterchange, by rail or Metrolink.
-
-
Compliant
Compliant based on aCalder Valley Corridorservice reversing atSalford Crescent.
Compliant
6. Connectivityto delivereconomicbenefits
All principal corridors to be connected ifpossible to the same station inManchester city centre for easypassenger transfer (or through cross-Manchester operation), as well as othercentral area stations appropriate to thetravel market.
- Compliant based on aCalder Valley Corridorservice reversing atSalford Crescent.
Compliant
The improved connectivity shouldtherefore be used:(a) where possible, topromote direct cross-city movements (forwhich train service provision and hencefranchising costs will also generallyexperience cost efficiencies), or (b) wherethis cannot be done, to facilitateconvenient passenger interchange. Thisis best done at a single Manchester citycentre station to avoid circuitous, timeconsuming/counter-intuitive routeing.
Both options seek tomaximise cross citymovements.
- -
Compliant
From each principal rail corridor toSalford Quays there should be a servicethat requires no more than a singleinterchange by bus or Metrolink
- Compliant based on aCalder Valley Corridorservice reversing atSalford Crescent.
Compliant
7. ManchesterAirport
The requirement is for direct services ofat least hourly interval service frequencyin each of the principal corridors (30minutes in the case of the Yorkshire andthe Humber and North East via Leedscorridor)…
Compliant - -
… on a 7 day/week basis … Compliant - -
… with service start and finish timegiving 95% of air passengers the optionof using rail for their inbound andoutbound legs
Infrastructure isavailable to supportservices in 2009. Theservices level is notcurrently specified inthe franchises.
- -
4. Journey times
Requirement
Objective Sub objective Generic to Option 1 Option 2both options specific specific
Leeds 40 minutes The maturity of thescheme for delivery inControl Period 4 (CP4)prevented detailedanalysis at this stage.
Diverting to Victoriaprovides a benefit offive minutescompared to currenttimetable.
Bradford 50 minutes, recognising routecharacteristics
Journey timeanalysisandhigh level costassessment did notidentify value formoney interventionsto deliver the targetjourney time inControlperiod 5 (CP5).
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage. Incrementaljourney timeimprovements to bedeveloped
Sheffield 40 minutes Journey time analysisand high level costassessment did notidentify value formoney interventionsto deliver the targetjourney time in CP5.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Chester 40 minutes Journey time analysisand high level costassessment did notidentify value formoney interventionsto deliver the targetjourney time in CP5.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Liverpool Lime Street 30 minutes - Assumes 90mphrunning betweenHuyton and Astleyallowing a 32minute journey timefrom Oxford Road
Assumes 90mphrunning betweenHuyton and Astleyallowing a 33 minutejourney time fromManchester Victoria or30 minutes to SalfordCentral if SalfordCentral Liverpool lineplatforms areprovided.
Preston 30 minutes. Journey timeanalysis and highlevel costassessment did notidentify value formoney interventionsto deliver the targetjourney time in CP5.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
Incremental journeytime improvementopportunities to bedeveloped at a laterstage.
These are target journey times for the keycorridors, from a Manchester City Centrestation (either Manchester Victoria orManchester Piccadilly) to the principaladjoining city regions:
64 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options 65
Figure 6.4 demonstrates that both strategic options providehave a broadly consistent level of performance against theconditional outputs.
6.4 Economic evaluationDetailed economic appraisal has been completed forboth strategic options and in this section the review willfocus on the differences in;
• Capital costs
• Operating costs
• Benefits
In addition the analysis will demonstrate the economicjustification for both options against the DfT appraisalframework.
6.4.1 Capital costsThe respective capital costs of the strategic options at2009 cash prices and exclusive of property costs are inthe region of;
Option 1 £790m
Option 2 £530m
6.4.2 Operating costsThe service specification developed to prove theconcept of the strategic options provides similar serviceopportunities with two significant differences thatimpact on the operating costs and associated need forrevenue support.
In Option 1 Fast services from Manchester to Liverpoolalternate between use of the Chat Moss and CLC routes.In Option 2 the absence of a link between Victoria andthe CLC route, and route the inability to identify a likelyscheme, results in all four fast services running via theChat Moss route and additional services are provided onthe CLC route in their place.
As a result the operating cost of Option 1 is less thanOption 2 by £4 million per year at 2009 prices. Theannual operating cost for Option 1 is £38.8 millioncompared to £42.8 million for Option 2.
The service specification on which the appraisal wasbased has scope for further refinement, to increasebenefits and revenue and reduce operating costs. Thiscan be done at later development stages of theManchester Hub project.
6.4.3 Differences in the benefitsAlthough the two options deliver broadly the same netvolume of benefits the corridors in which these benefitsare generated varies between the two options. Option 1sees flows to and from corridors currently well connectedto Manchester Piccadilly benefiting, as this optiondelivers improved journey opportunities via ManchesterPiccadilly. Option 2 provides improved integrationbetween the corridors connecting to ManchesterVictoria, largely to the north of Manchester, with the
wider inter-regional and inter city rail network. Thefollowing bullet points summarise where there is a keydifference in the benefits generated and the reasons forthis difference.
• Travel from central Manchester is more attractive inOption 2 because journey opportunities away from thecity centre are available from the three centralManchester stations to all corridors. Further journeysfrom Manchester to Liverpool and Leeds are quickerfrom Manchester Victoria in Option 2.
• Commuter corridors from north east Manchestergenerate greater benefit in Option 2 because thisoption offers direct connection to Liverpool and aquicker direct connection to the south side ofManchester. This reflects the greater growth oncommuter services on northern corridors referenced in4.2.3.
• Journeys from the Sheffield corridor to Manchester arequicker in Option 1. This is because the journey timesfrom Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield are two minutesquicker than from Manchester Victoria and in Option 1all Sheffield trains operate from Manchester Piccadilly.It has therefore been concluded that Sheffield toManchester and Manchester Airport journeys must bevia Manchester Piccadilly; in Option 2 this sees theManchester and Manchester Airport train running at 30minute intervals to Manchester Piccadilly with thejourneys beyond Manchester running via ManchesterVictoria on the alternate pair of services also at 30minute intervals.
• Journey opportunities from the West Coast Main Line(WCML)/Welsh Borders/south Manchester toHuddersfield, Leeds and beyond are better in Option 1.These flows from the WCML and Wales to the Leedscorridor require a connection at Manchester Piccadilly.There are four trains per hour from ManchesterPiccadilly to the Leeds corridor in Option 1, whereasthere are only two in Option 2, with longer journeytimes via Manchester Victoria.
6.4.4 Carbon appraisalIn response to conditional output 2 a carbonassessment of the strategies was carried out. This wasconsistent with WEBTAG appraisal criteria for reductionin road vehicle mileage as a result of modal shift to railand Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (DEFRA) guidance on the carbon impact ofvehicles. The resultant appraisal identified a reductionof 1.98 million tonnes of carbon over 60 years fromimplementation of the Manchester Hub based oncurrent traction type and performance.
6.4.5 Net present value appraisal of costs and benefitsFigure 6.5 shows the net present value of the annualbenefits and costs associated with Options 1 and 2 overa 60 year appraisal period. For appraisal purposes,following DfT guidelines figures have been discountedto 2002 values using historic inflation rates. Benefitshave been uplifted by assumed passenger growth infuture years and indices consistent with WEBTAG
8. Trans Pennine
Requirement
Objective Sub objective Generic to Option 1 Option 2both options specific specific
Leeds – Manchester a 15 minute intervalservice (or better)
- Compliant Compliant
9. North southlinks and highspeed rail
To meet forecasts and requirements for adoubling of West Coast Main Linedemand by 2026
Study assumedfuture West Coasttimetable beingdeveloped as part ofthe Stafford projectfor 2016 atManchester.
- -
with such provision as indicated as beingappropriate by the National NetworksStrategy Group, to accommodate HighSpeed 2 (HS2) options to and beyondcentral Manchester, together with apossible parkway station
- See 6.2.4 requirespassive provision.Compliant
See 6.2.4 compliant
Sheffield – Manchester a 20 minuteservice interval
The opportunity isidentified for up tofour trains per hourrunning in halfhourly pairs fromSouth Yorkshire andthe East Midlands.
- -
10. Freight Provision for a doubling of freighttonnage from existing and new originsand destinations to/from the multi-modal terminals at Trafford Park andelsewhere in the North West by 2030.
The additionalfreight pathsprovided to andfrom Trafford Parkare adequate tomeet the forecast of2030 freight traffic
Compliant Compliant
guidance and previous Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)analysis have been used to estimate how operationalcosts, capital costs and non user benefits might changeover the appraisal period.
Current WEBTAG guidelines do not include widereconomic benefits in calculating the Benefits Cost Ratio(BCR), although from April 2010 they are included. As aresult in appraising the Manchester Hub wider economicbenefits have been included in the BCR.
Including the revenue benefits the two strategic optionsdeliver significant benefit; £4.01 billion present value inOption 1 and £4.23 billion present value in Option 2. Ascan be seen both options represent high value formoney with the difference in the benefits cost ratiobeing driven by difference in capital cost for the twoschemes and the increased benefits in Option 2described in 6.4.3.
66 Chapter 6: Evaluation of strategic options 67
60 year appraisal Option 1 PV £m Option 2 PV £m
Costs (Present value)
Investment cost 859.7 578.2
Operating cost 768.9 849.9
Revenue -474.5 -491.5
Total costs 1,154.1 936.7
Benefits (Present value)
Rail users benefits 1,581.2 1,601.5
Non users benefits 454.1 473.8
Crowding benefits 909.7 1,018.5
Other government impacts -121.6 -126.0
Wider economic benefits 713.4 766.2
Total quantified benefits 3,536.8 3,733.9NPV 2,382.7 2,797.3Quantified BCR 3.1 4.0
Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices
Figure 6.5 Appraisal table
The assessment work has identified that both Option 1and Option 2 represent credible packages for enhancingrail services across the North. In 2009 prices, Option 1has a capital cost in the region of £790 million andOption 2 £530 million, excluding property costs.
Both Option 1 and 2 deliver substantial economicbenefits. Over a 60 year appraisal period Option 2delivers greater benefit than Option 1.
Both strategic options have a value for money case.Following Department for Transport (DfT) criteria bothOption 1 and Option 2 have a high value for moneycase.
As well as being cheaper to implement, the economicappraisal indicates that Option 2 also has a better valuefor money case.
Greater risk is associated with the cost of Option 1. Inparticular, it has greater land purchase and greatercompensation payments due to disruption to trainoperations during construction. In terms of trainperformance, Option 2, with its increased use ofManchester Victoria, is an improvement over the currentposition. Option 2 also provides opportunities to phasethe interventions either to minimise disruption duringthe construction works or to reflect affordability. Theassessment of risk and disruption during constructionreinforces the case for Option 2 over Option 1.
In terms of wider economic benefits to the North ofEngland and meeting the conditional outputs Option 2outperforms Option 1. The issues of networkperformance and connectivity for the Calder Valleycorridor are particular distinguishing differences.
Given the common nature of interventions on the radialroutes at this stage in the development of theManchester Hub the critical strategic decision is thestrategy through the core central area.
In the light of the analysis it is therefore concluded thatstrategic Option 2 be taken forward for furtherdevelopment through the Guide to Railway InvestmentProjects (GRIP) stages to inform Network Rail’s InitialStrategic Business Plan in 2011 and the High LevelOutput Specification to be issued in 2012 for delivery inControl Period 5 (CP5). This further development workwill include opportunities for aspects of Option 1 to becombined with Option 2 to provide additional benefits.
Through Option 2 the Manchester Hub offers thepotential for significant improvements to rail services,which are detailed in Chapter 8.
To realise the benefits identified in the study NetworkRail intends to work with DfT and stakeholders throughthe feasibility stage of the Manchester Hub project todevelop the opportunities to:
• Improve the journey time on the North trans Pennineroute to the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber.
• Develop the plans for key commuter corridors further inthe light of the ongoing work with DfT, Northern andGreater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive(GMPTE) on Greater Manchester passenger forecasts.
• Develop the plans in conjunctions with the Developing aSustainable Transport System, (DaSTS) studies whichinclude; Trans Pennine, Access to Manchester, Access toLeeds and North West Connectivity.
• Review the further opportunity for the services fromsouth Manchester to West Yorkshire and beyond.
• Refine the proposed direct connections both betweencities in the North and the commuter network tomaximise benefits across the North.
• Review the strategy in the light of emerging proposalson electrification from the Network Route UtilisationStrategy (RUS) Electrification strategy.
• Refine the proposal in the light of proposed rolling stockstrategy developed through the Network RUS Depotsand Rolling Stock strategy to be published forconsultation in November 2010.
• To develop the opportunities for freight in line with theongoing work developing the plans for the StrategicFreight Network beyond 2014.
• Through the Northern RUS to review the opportunitiesoutside of the study area
• To identify opportunities for incremental journey timeimprovements, through linespeed improvementsassociated with maintenance and renewal activity.
Network Rail will now take the development of theManchester Hub forward through Network Rail’s projectdevelopment process linking to the following timescalesas part of the development of plans for delivery in CP5:
Summer 2010 Industry view of initial CP5 options
September 2010 Draft Northern RUS
Summer 2011 Initial Strategic Business Plan
June 2012 High Level Output Specification CP5.
6968 Chapter 7: Conclusions
Chapter 7
Conclusions
8.0 OpportunitiesThe provision of the infrastructure in Option 2 providessignificant opportunity for train service improvements,which are detailed below. These improved services andlinks could be implemented at any time once theinfrastructure is in place. This would depend on futuregrowth in demand, the business case for eachincremental service enhancement and affordabilityshould additional subsidy be required.
8.1 London, Birmingham and the south- additional capacity to Manchester to meet the
plans for the West Coast Main Line. This couldbe an additional stopping service betweenManchester and Birmingham and reducedjourney time for an existing service
- does not close off options for trains from a highspeed line in the future to arrive in Manchester.
8.2 Inter-regional and trans Pennine service• Leeds, York and Hull:
- six trains per hour from Leeds and beyond.Opportunity for four fast trains with only one ortwo stops thereby improving journey times
- faster journey time to and through centralManchester
- increased frequency provides opportunity fornew direct services to Liverpool, Chester, Prestonor Manchester Airport.
• The North East (Newcastle and Middlesbrough):
- opportunity for new direct services beyondManchester
- improved journey times through use of the fourfast trains on North trans Pennine
- improved performance of services toManchester Airport
- improved connections for onwards journeys atLeeds, Huddersfield and Manchester Victoria.
• South Yorkshire (Sheffield and Doncaster):
- faster journey time to Manchester Piccadilly byaround five minutes
- increased frequency for up to four trains perhour running as two pairs, one in each pair toManchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoriarespectively
- increased direct services beyond Manchester toLiverpool, Chester or Preston via Victoria withjourney time improvements via the Chat Mossroute.
• East Midlands (Derby, Leicester and Nottingham):
- two trains per hour to Manchester
- faster journey time to Manchester Piccadilly byaround five minutes
- improved connections beyond Manchester (viaVictoria) making use of the improved journeytime to Liverpool via the Chat Moss route
- potential for one train per hour to run direct toManchester (avoiding Sheffield) with resultantjourney time improvement without worseningcurrent East Midlands to Sheffield connectivity.
• Bradford and Halifax:
- two trains per hour crossing Manchester toManchester Airport and Liverpool or Chester
- improved connection through ManchesterVictoria and Manchester Piccadilly.
• Liverpool:
- improved journey time of 33 minutes toManchester Victoria
- four fast trains per hour between ManchesterVictoria and Liverpool Lime Street
- improved connections for inter-regionaldestinations at Manchester Victoria
- access to Manchester Airport via WarringtonCentral.
• Chester:
- doubled frequency to two trains per hour
- direct service across Manchester to destinationssuch as Manchester Airport, Bradford, Sheffieldand Leeds
- incremental journey time improvements as aresult of works on the Chat Moss route.
7170 Chapter 8: Opportunities for service improvements from the preferred option
Chapter 8
Opportunities for service improvementsfrom the preferred option
• The North West (Preston and beyond):
- additional services from Manchester to Prestonand destinations to the north
- capacity for electrified services to operate viaChat Moss route and West Coast Main Line(WCML) with the ability to provide a fast servicebetween Wigan and Manchester.
8.3 Key commuter corridors• Rochdale/Calder Valley:
- additional all day services to Rochdale fromManchester and Leeds
- direct services to destinations beyondManchester Victoria such as Manchester Airportand Wigan
- increased frequency of services between Halifaxand Leeds
- capacity for services from Burnley viaTodmorden if investment at Todmorden isfunded.
• Bolton Corridor:
- potential to alleviate peak crowding throughservices via WCML for Preston and north
- potential for more services to work through todestinations beyond Manchester Victoria, suchas the East Midlands
- faster journey times to Wigan from additionalservices via WCML
- opportunity for more all day services toBlackburn if investment at Darwen is funded.
• Atherton Line:
- potential for additional services in the peak
- faster journey times to Atherton and potentiallyother significant stations
- potential to alleviate peak crowding as Wiganpassengers travel via WCML
- potential for through working to destinationsbeyond Manchester Victoria to destinationssuch as Bradford.
• Chat Moss Route:
- significantly faster more frequent direct linksbetween Liverpool and Manchester
- more frequent fast services between Wigan andLiverpool
- faster local journeys due to electrification withscale dependent on stopping pattern
- more frequent service between stations toChester and central Manchester
- opportunity, if infrastructure is funded, for morefrequent service to Eccles by way of loop orturnback.
• CLC Route:
- potential for additional services
- potential to review stopping pattern which mayimprove frequency at some stations – but tradesoff journey time
- potential to consider stations at WhiteCity/Cornbrook.
• Northwich:
- more off-peak services closer to Greater Manchester
- faster journey time to key locations
- potential for Greenbank - Altrincham to belinked to Ashton/Guide Bridge.
• Crewe:
- potential for extra peak capacity when needed
- more frequent service to Manchester Airport
- Heaton Chapel/Levenshulme could see return to15 minute all day pattern.
• Stoke-on-Trent
- new direct service to Manchester Airport
- potential for faster services serving Manchesterfrom Congleton/Kidsgrove depending on stoppingpattern of the all day Birmingham slow service.
• Buxton/Hazel Grove:
- potential for additional services all day or peak only
- More off peak services beyond Hazel Grove(could be to Buxton or to Chinley)
- modest improvement in journey times –dependent on stopping patterns
- potential for long distance services to call atHazel Grove and or Chinley all day or peak only
- potential for a new station at Chapel-en-le-Frithon the Great Rocks line
- better faster connections to Sheffield and theEast Midlands from Manchester and potentiallyfrom Hazel Grove and Chinley dependent onstopping patterns.
• Marple:
- potential for more peak services to Marple, RoseHill and New Mills Central
- potential to improve services to Ardwick if viable
- more all day services to Chinley – with connectionsthere to Sheffield and the East Midlands
72 Chapter 8: Opportunities for service improvements from the preferred option 73
- potential for (additional) services to go toManchester Victoria, and for new station atEastlands.
• Glossop/Hadfield:
- more all day services in Greater Manchester
- significant increase in service frequency fromGuide Bridge to Manchester
- potential for some services to go to ManchesterVictoria if electrified
- ability to increase overall frequency if servicesalternate between Glossop and Hadfield.
• Huddersfield and Stalybridge:
- potential for more peak or all day services toStalybridge from Manchester Victoria and orManchester Piccadilly
- commuter services to Huddersfield fromManchester Piccadilly in lieu of ManchesterVictoria
- a link created between Stalybridge and GuideBridge
- more frequent trans Pennine trains call atStalybridge
- inclusion of Ashton–under–Lyne in the transPennine network
- potential for new station and turnback facility atDiggle facilitating additional services
- potential for electrification to Stalybridgeallowing electric through working from beyondManchester Victoria
- increased frequency east of Huddersfield.
• Manchester Loop;
- 15 minute pattern Manchester Victoria – OxfordRoad – Manchester Piccadilly – ManchesterAirport
- potential to include Salford Central if Liverpoolline platforms provided
- potential for a station at Eastlands with servicesworking through Manchester Victoria.
8.4 Manchester Airport- provide opportunity for new direct connections
such as to Bradford, Halifax, Chester, Stoke-on-Trent and Warrington
- improved cross Manchester capacity andplatform provides additional capacity forservices
- improved city centre dispersal throughManchester Piccadilly, Oxford Road andManchester Victoria
- improvement in performance through thesimplification of the operation at ManchesterPiccadilly.
8.5 Freight- doubling the number of paths from the West
Coast Main Line to Trafford Park meeting the2030 freight forecast
- provision of an hourly path on the Chat Mossroute to serve developments at Port Salford andParkside.
Absolute block
Hope Valley
North Trans Pennine
CLC
Chat Moss
Calder Valley
GRIP
WEBTAG
A form of railway signalling
The route from Dore to Edgeley Jn Stockport
The route from Manchester to Leeds, York, Hull and the North East via Huddersfield
The route from Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington Central
The route from Manchester to Liverpool via Newton-le-Willows
The route from Manchester to Bradford via Rochdale and Halifax
Guide to Railway Investment Projects, Network Rail’s project development framework.
DfT’s Transport Analysis Guidelines defining the appraisal criteria for transport projects
7574 Glossary
Glossary
7776 Appendices
AppendicesAppendix A
Details of formal stakeholder meetings and invitees
The Steering Group membership was as follows:
The Steering Group met on the following occasions:
• 8 September 2008
• 5 November 2009
• 13 January 2009
• 5 March 2009
• 8 May 2009
• 29 June 2009
• 7 August 2009
• 17 September 2009
• 15 October 2009
• 16 November 2009
• 10 December 2009
Peter Strachan (until January 2009)Jo Kaye (from January 2009)Vernon BarkerHeidi MottramRob WarnesNick GibbonsNicky MaileyDavid Leather
Stephen Clark
Brian WelchStuart BakerJohn JarvisRichard EcclesTom WadsworthGraham BothamRichard DonaldsonEmma Pemberton-Eccles
Route Director London North Western
Route Director London North Western
Managing Director
Managing Director
Performance and Planning Director
National Planning Manager
Head of Regional Transport
Chief Executive
Deputy Clerk
Policy Manager Cities and Regions Rail
Divisional Manager (National) Rail Projects
Transport Project Director
Head of Network Planning
Communications Manager
Principal Commercial Scheme Sponsor
Commercial Scheme Sponsor
Public Affairs Manager
Network Rail (Chair)
Network Rail (Chair)
First TransPennine Express
Northern Rail
Northern Rail
DB Schenker
Government Office of the North West
Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Executive (GMPTE)
Greater Manchester Integrated
Transport Authority (GMITA)
Department for Transport (DfT)
Department for Transport (DfT)
The Northern Way
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Name Title Organisation
The Working Group drew on the following people forworking level discussions;
In addition to ad-hoc discussions on specific issuesthroughout the study the group or subgroups met onthe following occasions;
• 11 February 2009
• 24 February 2009
• 18 March 2009
• 26 June 2009
• 30 June 2009
• 1 July 2009
• 18 September 2009
78 Appendices 79
Wider Stakeholder meetings were held on 15th May2009 and 17th September 2009 involving the followingattendees:
Name
Richard Donaldson
Peter Warhurst
David Langton
Jonathan Dunster
Stan Kitchin
Nick Gibbons
James Carter
Peter Leppard
Jon Ratcliffe
Tom Jones
Simon Taylor
Lanita Masi
Julian Daley
Chris Loader
Neil Chadwick
Graham Botham
Simon Hughes
Adrian Bocking
James Angus
Paul Prescott
Bob Casselden
Alastair Hutchinson
John Haith
Organisation
Network Rail (chair)
Northern Rail
First TransPennine Express
Virgin Trains
DB Schenker
DB Schenker
CrossCountry
Arriva Trains Wales
Arriva Trains Wales
Freightliner
East Midlands Trains
East Midlands Trains
Merseytravel
GMPTE
Northern Way
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Network Rail
Name
James Jarrett
Peter Leppard
Mike Cliffe
Chris Farrow
Jim Wensley
Paul Griffiths
Andrew Ross
Christine Garner
James Carter
Nick Gibbons
Kevin Williams
Brian Welch
Simon Taylor
Barry Davies
David Langton
Chris MacRae
Stephen Clark
David Leather
Steve Eccles
Chris Anslow
Bob Longworth
Jon Bottomley
David Stopher
David Marshall
Roger Jones
Emma Antrobus
Rob Warnes
Ian Wray
Claire Jones
Beverley Doward
Simon Dove
Warren Marshall
Neil Chadwick
Stephen Skeet
John Jarvis
Jon Dunster
Steve Hunter
Mike Padgett
Michael Padgett
Organisation
4NW
Arriva Trains Wales
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
Central Salford URC
Central Salford URC
Cheshire East Council
Cheshire East Council
Cheshire West and Chester Council
CrossCountry
DB Schenker
Derbyshire County Council
DfT
East Midlands Trains
East Midlands Regional Assembly
First TransPennine Express
Freight Transport Association
GMITA
GMPTE
Halton Borough Council
Lancashire County Council
Manchester Airport
Manchester Airport
West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Metro)
North East Councils
North West Rail Campaign
North West Rail Campaign
Northern Rail
North West Development Authority (NWDA)
NWDA
NWDA
ONE North East
Peel Airports
Northern Way
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
The Northern Way
Virgin Trains
Warrington Borough Council
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly
Yorkshire Forward
Appendix B
Infrastructure interventions consideredThis appendix summarises the engineeringinterventions that have been considered as part of theManchester Hub Study Phase Two.
For each intervention, the outline scope, andfunctionality is shown. Interventions are arranged intothree groups: those that form the Option 1 set, thosethat comprise the Option 2 set and those that have notbeen progressed for this study.
80 Appendices 81
5.1
Phase 2 Scheme Scope Railway System OptionReport Capability Benefit setref
Schedule of Engineering Interventions
Adswood Road –Cheadle Hulmefour tracking
Provide two extra tracks over one mileincluding a viaduct.
Removes or reduces junction conflict torelease capacity
none
5.2a Edgeley GradeSeparation(Cheadle Curve)
Diverts services from Buxton & Hope Valleyvia Up &Down Cheadle line through anew link to the west side of Edgeley Jns
Removes or reduces junction conflict torelease capacity
none
5.3 Rehanding the runninglines Adswood Road Jnto Slade Lane Jn
Remodel from Slade Lane to CheadleHulme to pair tracks by destination.
Removes or reduces junction conflict torelease capacity. Benefit not proven –issues with stopping services
none
5.5 Slade Lane – Ardwickimproved Headways
Speed changes and signal respacing todeliver two to two and a half minuteheadways
Capacity none
5.2b Edgeley GradeSeparation(Flyover)
Creates a flyover at Edgeley No 1 Jn forservices from the Hazel Grove direction
Removes or reduces junction conflict torelease capacity
none
5.4 Slade Lane SixTrack
Add two extra tracks between SladeLane Jn and Manchester Piccadilly
Removes or reduces junction conflict torelease capacity
none
5.6 Ardwick GradeSeparation
Takes traffic from Ashburys over themain line using a new flyover to joinnear Mayfield Good Loop
Reduced conflict from crossing moves. none
5.7b Ardwick EasternFlyover
The fast lines diverge near LongsightNorth Jn onto new viaduct up and overthe Ashburys Line. Terminates in newplatforms on the East side ofManchester Piccadilly station.
Capacity relief for Ardwick Jn, removal ofsome conflicting moves and new stationfacilities.
none
5.7a Ardwick Flyover –reduced conflict version
As 5.6, but with a forked ramp at theMayfield end to straddle the slow lines.
Further reduced conflict from crossingmoves
1
5.8 Midland Curve Provides a connection betweenManchester Victoria and ManchesterPiccadilly via Phillips Park using theMidland Curve viaduct. Scope assessedincludes two additional lines into twoadditional platforms at ManchesterPiccadilly.
Improved connectivity, reduced conflictat Ardwick Jn.
none
5.9
Phase 2 Scheme Scope Railway System OptionReport Capability Benefit setref
ManchesterPiccadillyPlatforms A, B etc
Additional terminal platforms to theeast of the current station and includedin 5.8 and 5.7b
Additional platform capacity atManchester Piccadilly
None
5.11 Manchester Piccadillyplatforms 15 & 16 andremodel access toplatforms 9-14
As 5.10, but remodels platforms 13 and14 too to permit a doubling of theconnection into the terminal platforms 9to 12.
As 5.10, but also provides more terminalplatform capacity through ability tobetter access platforms 9 to 12.
1
5.12 ManchesterOxfordRoad platformcapacity
Switch & Crossing (S&C) remodelling,associated signalling and overhead lineworks and platform lengthening.
Increases through capacity atManchester Oxford Road to match thatprovided by 5.10 or 5.11.
1 and 2
5.14 Western entrance toTrafford Parkterminal
Additional electrified loops and S&C topermit access to the west. Requireseither 5.15 or 5.16 too.
Potential for relief of capacity on theCastlefield corridor. Supports diversionof freight to the West Coast Main Line(WCML) at Warrington or Winwick Jn.
none
5.16 New link fromGlazebrook toKenyon
Reinstatement of twin track railway,electrified, on substantially extantcorridor and new junctions at Kenyon onthe Chat Moss line.
As 5.14. none
5.20 Salford additionalplatforms
Two additional six-car platforms atSalford Central station on the existingLiverpool lines alignment with accessand egress arrangements.
Facility for additional stop in the centralManchester/Salford conurbation
none
5.18 Ordsall Curve A two track chord line between Up andDown Chat Moss lines and the Up andDown Bolton line.
Provides a direct rail connection betweenManchester Victoria and ManchesterPiccadilly stations. Improved connectivityand access from the North and East toManchester Airport. Reduced crossingconflicts at Ardwick Jn
2
5.10 Manchester Piccadillyplatforms15 & 16 only
Provides two additional 200 metrethrough platforms parallel to existingplatforms 13 and 14.
Increased capacity (+25%) on theCastlefield corridor by easing the rulingconstraint – which is P13 & 14reoccupation times.
2
5.19
5.17 Manchester Airportadditional platform
Provision of a fourth platform andassociated infrastructure.
Additional platform capacity for airportservices.
1 and 2
Improved capacity from reduced crossingmoves conflict at Ordsall Lane Jn.
noneFlyover for the Up and Down Chat Mossover the up and Down Bolton lines atOrdsall.
Ordsall GradeSeparation
5.21 Enables Chat Moss electric services topass through Manchester Victoria torelease capacity.
noneExtend planned electrification fromManchester Victoria to Stalybridge
Manchester Victoria– Stalybridgeelectrification
New link betweenPadgate and theWCML
5.15 Reinstatement of twin track railway,electrified, on extant corridor atWarrington and new junctions atPadgate and on the WCML
As 5.14. none
5.13 Castlefield four-tracking
Parallel viaduct to the south of theexisting alignment.
Increases through capacity (provided5.10 or 5.11 and 5.12 are also delivered)but is not the ruling constraint.
none
82 Appendices 83
5.22
Phase 2 Scheme Scope Railway System OptionReport Capability Benefit setref
Astley headways Elimination of headway constraintarising from user worked level crossingat Astley Signal Box through provision ofan overbridge.
Remove headway constraint toimprove capacity
2
5.23 ManchesterVictoriaHeadways
Speed change and associated signallingalterations to implement a 25/35mphdifferential maximum speed.
Remove headway constraint toimprove capacity
2
5.24 ManchesterVictoria Bayplatforms
Provide two new six-car platforms atManchester Victoria connected to theUp Salford near Victoria West Jn
Terminal platforms for servicesto/from the North West. Releasescapacity on the through platforms.
2
5.25 Chat Mosslinespeedincreases (LSI)
All disciplines scope from LSI to 90mphbetween Huyton and Astley.
Improved journey times 1 & 2
5.37
Phase 2 Scheme Scope Railway System OptionReport Capability Benefit setref
Stalybridge - LeedsLSI
Dependent on output from the CP4scheme
Journey time saving betweenManchester and Leeds
none
5.38 Victoria – StalybridgeLSI
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving betweenManchester Victoria and Stalybridge
none
5.39 Dewsbury Up loop Reinstate Up loop through Dewsburystation
trans Pennine capacity benefits 1 and 2
5.40 Marsden to Digglefour-tracking
Reinstate track between Diggle andMarsden in the disused bores ofStandedge tunnel
trans Pennine capacity benefits 1 and 2
5.26 Broad Green –Huyton four-tracking
Two additional electrified tracks overtwo miles, including Roby and Huytonstations, with associated resignalling
Improved capacity allowing freightand stopping services to recess.
2
5.27 St Helens Centralelectrification
Extend electrification. Allows electric services to operatebetween Huyton and Wigan
none
5.28 Golborne Jn speedincrease
Increase the speed of turnouts andcrossovers in the Golborne area
Increases junction capacity andimproves journey time.
none
5.30 Manchester - PrestonLSI
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving betweenManchester and Preston via Bolton
See5.11.6
5.35 Manchester - BradfordLSI
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving betweenManchester and Bradford
See5.11.6
5.34 Rochdale bayplatform
Remodel Rochdale to allow a bayplatform in which to reverse towardsManchester
Increases capacity on Calder Valleyline
1 and 2
5.36 Headway improvementCalder Valley
Improve headways on Calder Valley, Increases capacity on Calder Valley none
5.32 Salford Crescent Control Period 4 (CP4) works Extra capacity at Salford Crescentassumed in CP4
none
5.31 Bolton Loops Loops on the Bolton Line by creatingPlatform 1 and Platform 5 as loopplatforms
Improved service frequency possibleto Bolton and beyond
none
5.33 Castleton Jns to Bury Remodel Junction at Castleton South,and other works
Allows trains to operate between EastLancs and Victoria.
none
5.29 Manchester - ChesterLSI
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving betweenManchester and Chester
See5.11.6
5.41 New Mills Central –Manchester VictoriaLSI
S&C renewal and remodelling andsignals respacing.
tmproved speeds for trans Pennine andcommuter services
2
5.42 LSI Ashton Moss –Heaton Norris Jns
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving none
5.43 Chinley loops Station works and addition of twopassing loops
trans Pennine capacity benefits 1 and 2
5.44 New Station atChapel-en-le-Frith
Provide new station in Chapel-en-le-Frith Capacity benefit from allowing slowtrains to get off the main line
none
5.45a Grindleford loops Station works and addition of twopassing loops
Improved capacity for Hope Valleyservices
1 and 2
5.47 Roby conversion threeto four-aspect signalling
Signalling scope. Included in 5.26 inOption 2
Capacity benefit on Chat Moss line. 1
5.48 Ashburys to GuideBridge four-tracking
Remodelling work and four-tracking over3.5 miles
Capacity 1
5.46 Manchester -Sheffield LSI
All disciplines LSI scope Journey time saving betweenManchester and Sheffield
See5.11.6
5.45b Dore Jn doubling Track, civils & signals to double the chordbetween Dore Station Jn and Dore WestJn, including Dore & Totley station.
Improved speed and capacity on HopeValley services
1 and 2
85
Manchester AirportTen tph from Manchester and beyond, two tph fromCrewe and beyond:
• half hourly from Leeds via Huddersfield: one from New-castle and one from Middlesbrough
• half hourly from Preston: one from Scotland and onefrom Blackpool
• half hourly stopping service from Liverpool
• half hourly from Crewe with one starting from Stoke-on-Trent
• hourly from Cleethorpes via Sheffield
• hourly from Southport via Salford Crescent
• hourly from Chester via Manchester
• hourly from Bradford and Halifax
Key Commuter Corridors• Manchester Airport 10 tph
- eight tph fast inter-regional services
- half hourly all stops
• Stockport Corridor – 16 tph
- nine tph fast long distance or inter-regional servicesproviding for commuters at Chinley, Hazel Grove,Macclesfield, Wilmslow, Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe
- Alderley Edge half hourly, one from Crewe
- Macclesfield hourly
- Buxton two tph
- Northwich line, two tph
• Marple Corridor – six tph
- two tph fast inter-regional services
- Marple one tph
- Rose Hill one tph
- Chinley half hourly, one fromSheffield on alternate hours
• Hadfield line four tph
- Hadfield half hourly
- Glossop half hourly
• Diggle route eight tph
- six tph fast or semi-fast inter-regional services pro-viding for commuters at Ashton-under-Lyne, Staly-bridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury
- Stalybridge half hourly, one from Huddersfield (des-tination Manchester Victoria in Option 1 and desti-nation Manchester Piccadilly in Option 2)
- Huddersfield – Leeds half hourly
- one tph Calder Valley via Brighouse fast to Leeds
• Manchester – Leeds via Calder Valley and Bradford sixtph
- four tph fast or semi-fast inter-regional
- Manchester - Rochdale half hourly
• Bolton Corridor seven tph
- two tph fast inter-regional providing services at keycommuter stations and with on train capacity easedby two more via WCML
- Preston half hourly
- Blackburn one tph
- Wigan via Bolton half hourly both from Southport
• Atherton Line three tph
- on train capacity eased from two fast inter-regionalvia WCML
- Wigan via Atherton half hourly slow, one from Kirkby
- Wigan one tph semi-fast
• Lime Street – Wigan via St Helens Central four tph
- half hourly fast inter-regional
- half hourly Wigan
• Chat Moss four tph Option 1, six tph Option 2
- half hourly or quarter hourly fast inter-regional pro-viding services at key commuter stations
- Manchester to Liverpool Lime Street half hourly
• CLC four tph
- half hourly semi-fast inter-regional providing serv-ices at key commuter stations
- Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport toLiverpool Lime Street half hourly.
Appendix CThe modelled timetableA summary of the off-peak pattern of the service thatwas modelled is provided below. With the exception ofthe Chat Moss route, the level of service provision onthe corridors remained the same in both the optionsconsidered, the big difference being how the serviceswere handled in the centre.
Long distance• London service - 20 minute frequency fast – two trains
per hour (tph) via Stoke-on-Trent and one tph via Crewe
• Birmingham service - 30 minute frequency fast – onetph via Stoke-on-Trent and one tph via Crewe
• Trafford Park freight - two tph from the WCML
• Bootle Branch – Earlestown – WCML freight two tph
• Ordsall Lane Jn – WCML freight two tph: with one frombeyond Victoria.
Inter-Regional and trans PennineThe pattern of inter-regional services fromManchesterthat was modelled is as below, noting that many of theservices work through Manchester to create through links:
• Leeds and further north east via Huddersfield – four tphfast and two tph semi-fast
• Hope Valley – 4 tph fast: two via Stockport, and one viaDore South Curve
• Leeds via Bradford / Halifax and Calder Valley halfhourly fast, one tph semi-fast
• Leeds via Brighouse and Calder Valley – one tph semi-fast
• Preston – four tph fast - two via Wigan and WCML, twovia Bolton: one service originating from Scotland alter-nating between Edinburgh and Glasgow
• Liverpool –
- Option 1 (see 5.11) two tph fast via Chat Moss, twotph semi-fast via CLC
- Option 2 (see 5.11) becomes four tph fast via ChatMoss, two tph semi-fast via CLC
• Liverpool - Preston – half hourly fast via St Helens Central
• Chester and further west – half hourly
• Cardiff – one tph
• Birmingham via Stoke-on-Trent andMacclesfield one tph.
The impact of these additional inter-regional serviceson the existing timetable is summarised by Figure C.1
84 Appendices
Sheffield Base 2 1 Liverpool 11 4 1 Liverpool 2 Preston 12 4 1 Liverpool 2 Preston 1
Leeds Base 4 2 Liverpool 11 6 2 Liverpool 2 Chester 1 Southport 12 6 2 Liverpool 2 Chester 1 Southport 1
Bradford(from Leeds) Base 2 - -
1 4 1 Preston 12 4 1 Liverpool 1 Preston 1 Wigan
Liverpool Base 3 1 Norwich 1 Scarborough 11 4 - Norwich 1 Scarborough 1 Doncaster 1 Hull 12 6 1 Norwich 1 Scarborough 1 Doncaster 1 Hull 1 Leeds via Bradford 1
Chester Base 1 - -1 2 1 Leeds 12 2 1 Leeds 1
Preston Base 2 2 -1 4 2 Leeds via Bradford 1 East Midlands 12 4 2 Leeds via Bradford 1 East Midlands 1
Cardiff Base 1 - -1 1 - -2 1 - -
Birmingham Base - - -1 1 - -2 1 - -
Services to Destinations in modelled optionOption Manchester MA* Other direct destinations
Figure C.1 Inter-regional services
* Manchester Airport
