How to add 400m platforms to Manchester Piccadilly

[Nottingham59]

If HS2 Phase 2B is not going to be built, then capacity to Manchester will be severely limited by the number of trains that can get through Colwich Juntion and Stafford. The only way to increase capacity to Manchester is to run longer trains. This is how I would add 3 x 400m platforms at Piccadilly.

This view from Google Maps shows what is currently a carpark alongside the main shed at Piccadilly. I assume this structure will carry the weight of trains because it is where the old goods lines used to be.


I would build two new tracks, Track 0 and Track -1 along this structure, along the edge next to Sheffield Street. Platform 0 would be 10m wide, between Track 0 and the side of the shed. Platform -1 would be built cantilevered out over Sheffield Street. Given that Travis Street already has 15'3" clearance under existing Tracks 1-14, a thin pedestrian deck forming platform -1 should not interfere with traffic on Sheffield St.

Platform -1 and platform 0 would need to be 415m long. Making them dead straight would require tight curves to join the main throat.

I would have the first 300m straight, to allow splitting and joining to be done on the straight, while a slight curve over the last 115m to ease curves in the throat and allow crossovers to be installed on straight track. You would need to extend the Travis Street and Fairfield Street tunnels and probably block off North Western Street to accommodate the new structure.

You coud then straighten Platform 1 to make a third 400m platform, opening up the window arches in the main shed to allow circulation between platform 1 and platform 0. A mezzanine deck may be needed to ease passenger circulation and access to Platforms 2-14.


The three new tracks could simply merge onto the main line above the Mancunian Way, but this would lead to conflict with traffic from Guide Bridge which still has to access the main shed. To avoid this, I would build an 900m-1km twin-track viaduct alongside the existing WCML viaduct to carry the HS2 traffic over the line at Ardwick Station and merge with the main lines between Ardwick and Longsight. Because HS2 trains can cope with 4% gradients, this viaduct could be quite steep and relatively short, but still give W12 clearance over the Guide Bridge line. I would keep crossovers between the Mancunian way and Ardwick to allow HS2 trains to access the Styal Line.

These images show where I would put the pillars of the viaduct. Most spans use the Chinese HS viaduct standard length of 24m or 32m. Almost no demolition would be required.




Unless the land has been developed since the Google satellite view was taken, acquiring it should be cheap. Grade separating Ardwick Junction this way would be much cheaper than trying to put the line from Guide Bridge on a flyover instead.

I estimate the cost should be around £500m for the three new platforms, and £200m for the new viaduct to Longsight. But everything on the railway costs more than it should. So let's say £1bn.

What do people think?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A vastly cheaper option that wouldn't necessitate an additional viaduct and a flyover would be to move Platforms 1-3 onto the car park to the north of the station, with the approach line shifted onto already-railway land to the north (may also be able to add a fourth local Hope Valley platform). Then widen, extend and rejig the present Avanti platforms to be wider, longer and straighter, which should fairly easily get you four 400m platforms. Another advantage of this is that it could be done on a phased basis with very limited loss of platform capacity.

There's already a massive, newish multi storey car park so the loss of a hundred or so spaces on that site would not be a major problem.

Might need a wider bridge at the end of Sheffield St but that's not a massive issue, far cheaper than a long viaduct!

 

[Nottingham59]

A vastly cheaper option that wouldn't necessitate an additional viaduct and a flyover would be to move Platforms 1-3 onto the car park to the north of the station, with the approach line shifted onto already-railway land to the north (may also be able to add a fourth local Hope Valley platform).

I did look at that option, but there didn't seem space without a lot of new track to access them. How would it all fit together?

Then widen, extend and rejig the present Avanti platforms to be wider, longer and straighter, which should fairly easily get you four 400m platforms. Another advantage of this is that it could be done on a phased basis with very limited loss of platform capacity.

The problem I found was that the long platforms 4/5 and 8/9 are very narrow and have S-curves to avoid the Castlefield lines. If you want four 400m platforms, wide enough to accommodate the passenger flows, then I think you'd have to rebuild everything. The HS2 standard is for platforms 15m wide, tapering to 8m if necessary at the ends. I couldn't see how you can get anywhere near that inside the current shed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did look at that option, but there didn't seem space without a lot of new track to access them. How would it all fit together?

There's space to move the approach lines to P1-3 over. Configuration would thus be the same as now, just on a wider site with a slightly different layout.

The problem I found was that the long platforms 4/5 and 8/9 are very narrow and have S-curves to avoid the Castlefield lines. If you want four 400m platforms, wide enough to accommodate the passenger flows, then I think you'd have to rebuild everything. The HS2 standard is for platforms 15m wide, tapering to 8m if necessary at the ends. I couldn't see how you can get anywhere near that inside the current shed.

HS2 spec is of no relevance as these are classic line platforms. The specification to follow would be normal Network Rail specification.

They wouldn't be that narrow, though, if they were widened to take up all the space currently occupied by P1-3, with those moved outside the present trainshed.

But actually looking at it, you may not even need to do that. The lines follow the curve of the P1-4 approach lines. If you straightened those onto the land presently occupied by Network Rail portakabins, with them coming in just before the Ring Road bridge, you might not even need to move 1-3 outside the shed as you could then straighten the 4-5 island significantly - though in WCML terms that would only get you 4 and 5 at 400m, the ones further south would need to cross too much of the formation to be using for Euston trains. That however might well work fine if you ran the 3tph as 2 x 400m and 1 x 200m with people priced onto the longer ones.

Though interestingly getting 10-11 to 400m would be easiest - you'd just have to redesign the crossovers to move them further from the station, other than those the gap is wide enough to easily stick 100m on the platform without any reduction in width. Only issue is curvature.

 

[A0wen]

A far easier way would be to replace the Pendolinos with something which better utilise space.

An 11 car 390/1 with a length of 265m has a seating capacity of 607 seats, whereas over on the East Coast a 9 car 801/2 with a length of 233m has a seating capacity of 611 seats. A trailer has a length of 26m and can seat a further 80, which would mean a 10 car unit with a length of 259m and seating capacity of 671 - so 10% more in the same space.

 

[HSTEd]

As this is a terminus station with a linespeed below 100mph, the minimum usable width for an island platform is 5.5m, not 15m. I think a solution requiring a huge new viaduct is unlikely to get funded, we have to look for the minimum solution available. 400m platforms for intercity trains to London and potentially crowd-busters to Birmingham is itself a major increase in capability.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't put crossovers for HS2 between Mancunian Way and Ardwick, you would do it further along.

 

[350401]

A far easier way would be to replace the Pendolinos with something which better utilise space.

An 11 car 390/1 with a length of 265m has a seating capacity of 607 seats, whereas over on the East Coast a 9 car 801/2 with a length of 233m has a seating capacity of 611 seats. A trailer has a length of 26m and can seat a further 80, which would mean a 10 car unit with a length of 259m and seating capacity of 671 - so 10% more in the same space.

That’s pretty much what would happen if the HS2 rolling stock is lengthened to 10 coaches. Currently it is proposed to seat 528 over 8 coaches. Assuming 84 seats per standard carriage, you get to 696 seated, in a 250m train - and that’s keeping first class and the buffet.

Back on topic, assuming Piccadilly is able to be extended to 400m, would it be possible for SDO to be used at Stockport, Wilmslow, Macclesfield and Stoke? Or are there issues with the signal blocks? If so, assuming the HS2 delta north chord is built (it’s already half way out of the ground!), it brings back into play the prospect of running 400m trains from Manchester to Birmingham Curzon Street - not much faster than now but with much higher capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

Back on topic, assuming Piccadilly is able to be extended to 400m, would it be possible for SDO to be used at Stockport, Wilmslow, Macclesfield and Stoke? Or are there issues with the signal blocks? If so, assuming the HS2 delta north chord is built (it’s already half way out of the ground!), it brings back into play the prospect of running 400m trains from Manchester to Birmingham Curzon Street - not much faster than now but with much higher capacity.

Well Stockport has only five through platforms for four running lines, so I don't think the trains would cause huge problems with fouling pointwork.
Wilmslow and Stoke on Trent both look like, with proper position of the stop boards, you can be clear of any points. Macclesfield is a little dodgier because the train will foul pointwork at one end or the other (in one direction anyway) but likely isn't untenable.

 

[Greybeard33]

Back on topic, assuming Piccadilly is able to be extended to 400m, would it be possible for SDO to be used at Stockport, Wilmslow, Macclesfield and Stoke? Or are there issues with the signal blocks? If so, assuming the HS2 delta north chord is built (it’s already half way out of the ground!), it brings back into play the prospect of running 400m trains from Manchester to Birmingham Curzon Street - not much faster than now but with much higher capacity.

Without Phase 2, there will be no paths through the Trent Valley for trains to Curzon Street.

 

[Pigeon]

capacity to Manchester will be severely limited by the number of trains that can get through Colwich Juntion and Stafford. The only way to increase capacity to Manchester is to run longer trains.

Well, no, there is also the method of addressing the capacity limitation you have identified. This is a superior approach to leaving it in place and awkwardly bodging around one particular consequence of it.

So dig another tunnel at Shuggie-wuggie and put four tracks in between Colwich and Stafford. And also consider sending more trains via Stoke.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A far easier way would be to replace the Pendolinos with something which better utilise space.

An 11 car 390/1 with a length of 265m has a seating capacity of 607 seats, whereas over on the East Coast a 9 car 801/2 with a length of 233m has a seating capacity of 611 seats. A trailer has a length of 26m and can seat a further 80, which would mean a 10 car unit with a length of 259m and seating capacity of 671 - so 10% more in the same space.

TBH my overall view does tend to the idea of the HS2 order being changed to 275m units, perhaps even with a view to extending to 300. That would give a significant increase in capacity on all routes, particularly Glasgow, without the cost of major platform extensions. This isn't unprecedented, WMT changed the 730 order around quite significantly.

 

[The Planner]

So dig another tunnel at Shuggie-wuggie and put four tracks in between Colwich and Stafford. And also consider sending more trains via Stoke.

Cheadle Hulme says hello. 4 tracks between Colwich and Milford/Whitehouse still doesnt solve Colwich.

 

[Nottingham59]

But actually looking at it, you may not even need to do that. The lines follow the curve of the P1-4 approach lines. If you straightened those onto the land presently occupied by Network Rail portakabins, with them coming in just before the Ring Road bridge, you might not even need to move 1-3 outside the shed as you could then straighten the 4-5 island significantly - though in WCML terms that would only get you 4 and 5 at 400m

You mean like this?

P4 and P5 in blue are 415m. You could easily handle 2tph on those, giving 2x1100seats to Euston, which is an uplift on 3x607 on Pendolinos, and would release 1 path through Colwich.

P1,2,3 are all accessed by a single chord, which could be a constraint.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, that was what I had in mind. As a classic line Manchester is likely to remain for connectivity reasons, that'd actually give you even more capacity, and would be a similar service pattern to Euston-Birmingham pre HS2 which is intended to be two fast and one semifast. It would also allow regularisation of the south Manchester service pattern to a half hourly base - the 3tph evenly spaced fasts are a nuisance in a city where half hourly is the normal base.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You mean like this?

Is that land in the area of the former Mayfield station already earmarked for use or is that not a definite fact. I would be grateful if someone can furnish this thread with most updated information on that matter.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is that land in the area of the former Mayfield station already earmarked for use or is that not a definite fact. I would be grateful if someone can furnish this thread with most updated information on that matter.

Indeed, the Mayfield redevelopment is happening at a rapid pace (you can learn about it here - https://mayfieldmanchester.co.uk/).
But that redevelopment wouldn't stop a subsurface Mayfield station in future if planned properly.

 

[td97]

As this is a terminus station with a linespeed below 100mph, the minimum usable width for an island platform is 5.5m, not 15m.

Actually 4m. But this is Manchester Piccadilly, not a rural shack, and RSSB are going to have questions about a 400m HS2 train unloading 1100 passengers onto a narrow platform with 1100 passengers waiting to board...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will such a project have any effect on the already-existing Manchester Metrolink Ashton line during construction of the proposed 400m platforms during construction work and what would be the likely time scale period be of any such operational disruptions?

 

[Bevan Price]

TBH my overall view does tend to the idea of the HS2 order being changed to 275m units, perhaps even with a view to extending to 300. That would give a significant increase in capacity on all routes, particularly Glasgow, without the cost of major platform extensions. This isn't unprecedented, WMT changed the 730 order around quite significantly.

That would need two separate HS2 fleets if they are to serve more than Manchester, London & Birmingham.
For example, an 11 coach 390 just fits into Liverpool Lime Street. No way of extending the platforms to accept 275m. trains, never mind 300m.

 

[The Planner]

Will such a project have any effect on the already-existing Manchester Metrolink Ashton line during construction of the proposed 400m platforms during construction work and what would be the likely time scale period be of any such operational disruptions?

Yes, and no one knows as its not even designed, though you would expect to keep it open as much as possible.

 

[Energy]

That would need two separate HS2 fleets if they are to serve more than Manchester, London & Birmingham.
For example, an 11 coach 390 just fits into Liverpool Lime Street. No way of extending the platforms to accept 275m. trains, never mind 300m.

Really 200m is enough for Liverpool currently, 2x a between 9 and 11 car Pendolino is about right for the current market. 250m even better but shorter than 200m (like the 125m proposed by others) and it'll be very crowded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Two fleets is no great problem. Avanti presently manage three fleets just fine and before long will have four.

 

[Thornaby 37]

Maybe they could have movable platforms [like they used to have at Halesworth in Suffolk]

 

[Halifaxlad]

Lovin the high level crayonist...ing

 

[HSTEd]

That would need two separate HS2 fleets if they are to serve more than Manchester, London & Birmingham.
For example, an 11 coach 390 just fits into Liverpool Lime Street. No way of extending the platforms to accept 275m. trains, never mind 300m.

Two fleets are not that big of a problem in my view, although as I said I would think 250 and 400m would be the ideal lengths to operate.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Two fleets are not that big of a problem in my view, although as I said I would think 250 and 400m would be the ideal lengths to operate.

The problem with that every 250m set would occupy the entirety of the platform and prevent stacking of units.

There has been a discussion on another thread about the length of HS2 service where it was suggested by another poster of running 125m and 275m sets as both together can form 400m units.

Personally I would keep everything the same length ideally 300m which would make fittibg them into stations such as Manchester much more ideal as you wouldnt then have to extend the viaduct out Eastwards.

As for Liverpool I would build a new station!

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with that every 250m set would occupy the entirety of the platform and prevent stacking of units.

Would there be much call for stacking of units in a HS2 station? Especially given that a 250+400m solution would see no multiple working of units.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Would there be much call for stacking of units in a HS2 station? Especially given that a 250+400m solution would see no multiple working of units.

Considering Euston is now to have less platforms I would habe thought there will be more of a need!

 

[Nottingham59]

There has been a discussion on another thread about the length of HS2 service where it was suggested by another poster of running 125m and 275m sets as both together can form 400m units.

That was my suggestion, but I've since learned that Liverpool cannot take 275m.

My ideal length is now 130m units, consisting of 5x26m cars. This would allow 390m trains to maximise capacity through Colwich, and at Euston and Birmingham and places where platforms could be extended to 400m. And allow 260m trains to run to Manchester and Liverpool and Glasgow, and anywhere else that now takes 11-car Pendolinos.

And thinking about it, driving cars with their tapered aerodynamic shape could be 27.5m long and still fit into the same swept loading gauge. Which would give 2-unit multiples that are 266m long, and 3-unit multiples that are 400m. A perfect fit for HS2 phase 1.

EDIT: And if the train order is now fixed at 25m cars, then standardise on 5-car 125m units, giving 250m to Manchester and Liverpool and 375m to Crewe and Birmingham.