Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Buspilot]

The tram takes aprox. one hour to get a passenger from Piccadilly to the Airport. You also have to run the guantlet of the gangs of yobs around Wythenshaw jumping on and off the tram. It is not a direct tram route either, with a change being required at Cornbrook.
As a person who visits the area from abroad on a regular basis, it is the train everytime for me, both from time and personal security views.

 

[Altfish]

The tram takes aprox. one hour to get a passenger from Piccadilly to the Airport. You also have to run the guantlet of the gangs of yobs around Wythenshaw jumping on and off the tram. It is not a direct tram route either, with a change being required at Cornbrook.
As a person who visits the area from abroad on a regular basis, it is the train everytime for me, both from time and personal security views.

If you want Piccadilly area, yes the train every time but the tram takes 10-minutes to get from Piccadilly to Deansgate Castlefield + walking in between, the tram is quicker for the 'west' end of town

 

[MarkyT]

If you want Piccadilly area, yes the train every time but the tram takes 10-minutes to get from Piccadilly to Deansgate Castlefield + walking in between, the tram is quicker for the 'west' end of town

Agree it depends on where you're going in the centre, and some people will prefer a direct journey over a faster one which requires a change.

 

[Roose]

Which is why I said December because they were supposed to change in May.

I notice you didn't say which December...

 

[B&I]

I'm sat in the area now, in a lovely brick building just watching the GBFR class 66 pass over the brick viaduct. It is fine, some bad buildings but mostly ok.

The older buildings in the area are marvellous (and I think Victorian Manchester is one of Britain's most under-appreciated architectural assets). Much, but by no means all, of what has been built in recent years has been dire (as has been the case for most British cities).

Anyway, in an area where bridges and viaducts are already part of the landscape (and an attractive.part of it, in most cases), I'm sure a decent looking footbridge could be built.

 

[B&I]

It wasn't me that made that point, but I think that poster was referring to Metrolink expansion taking over existing heavy rail lines (Oldham loop) rather than serving previously untapped (by rail) areas such as the Oxford Road corridor. Even the Airport and East Didsbury lines, despite being a largely new alignment (using some old railway though) both terminate in places already served by heavy rail.

Indeed the only relevance to the topic was whether a tram to Oxford Road (station) and beyond would compensate for the loss of modal interchange at Deansgate. As the idea of closing Deansgate is intrinsically linked to the P15/16 project, it's not off-topic in my opinion.

That was my main point, though I've no problem with trams terminating at existing heacy rail stations (which seems to me a sensible way to build a network).

Another way to connect Oxford Road better to Metrolink would be to move the ramp so that the tram line descends to ground level west of Albion Street, and move the Deansgate tram stop to Albipn Street, which would.presumably be very close to any new western entrance to Oxford Rd. That, however, would require complicated engineering, and perhaps.a new tram stop in Castlefields to serve that area properly. Can't help but feel that fiddling with the tram layout to avoid a footbridge from Oxford.Road to Deansgate.is needlessly complicating matters, though a new tram line down Oxford Road to the southern suburbs would, I think, be justified on its own merits

 

[MarkyT]

Can't help but feel that fiddling with the tram layout to avoid a footbridge from Oxford.Road to Deansgate.is needlessly complicating matters...

Not to mention traffic delay during construction and adding journey time to what is now a nice fast direct segment down the gently graded ramp to St Peters Square.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The older buildings in the area are marvellous (and I think Victorian Manchester is one of Britain's most under-appreciated architectural assets). Much, but by no means all, of what has been built in recent years has been dire (as has been the case for most British cities).

I'm not sure I'd agree, I really like what it has become - just not the Beetham Tower, which is quite possibly one of the most ugly carbuncles constructed in the 21st century anywhere. There are some beautiful, innovative new designs of tower block in London, so why build something so awful in Manchester?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That particular aspiration was awarded the hypothetical "Barmpot Idea of the Year" award for two years running of the Fantasy Metrolink thread of the Skyscraper City website by a certain personage who no longer frequents that website but is known to many on this one.

Anywhere sensible in the world it (or a cut-and-cover light rail underground, even) would have been built years ago. The public transport demand is massive on that corridor and isn't going down any time soon, it justifies rail more than almost any other corridor in Manchester, including ones that already have it.

 

[Greybeard33]

Anywhere sensible in the world it (or a cut-and-cover light rail underground, even) would have been built years ago. The public transport demand is massive on that corridor and isn't going down any time soon, it justifies rail more than almost any other corridor in Manchester, including ones that already have it.

Might I suggest that someone starts a new thread, should they wish to pursue the topic of a tramway down Oxford Road?

 

[Greybeard33]

Not to mention traffic delay during construction and adding journey time to what is now a nice fast direct segment down the gently graded ramp to St Peters Square.

Fast? Deansgate-Castlefield to St Peters Square is timed at 3 minutes for a distance of 650m - an average speed of 8mph! The at grade crossing of Oxford Street is the worst bottleneck on the entire Metrolink network, constraining capacity through the city centre core.

The slowness of Metrolink between these two stops means that it is often possible to get an earlier tram by walking from Oxford Road station to Deansgate-Castlefield, rather than the slightly shorter distance to St Peters Square, when changing from heavy rail to Metrolink (southbound). For northbound and eastbound Metrolink services it is usually quicker/easier to change at Piccadilly rather than Oxford Road.

 

[Amstel]

So the answer is close Deansgate station to improve traffic flow of the 14 trains an hour through it and replace the connectivity with metrolink by having a tram spur from Oxford Road station to St Peter’s Square. The tram spur will have the bonus of being another tram end station in a useful position and the forerunner of a new tram line to MRI hospital along the University campus. Perfect.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That was my main point, though I've no problem with trams terminating at existing heacy rail stations (which seems to me a sensible way to build a network).

Another way to connect Oxford Road better to Metrolink would be to move the ramp so that the tram line descends to ground level west of Albion Street, and move the Deansgate tram stop to Albipn Street, which would.presumably be very close to any new western entrance to Oxford Rd. That, however, would require complicated engineering, and perhaps.a new tram stop in Castlefields to serve that area properly. Can't help but feel that fiddling with the tram layout to avoid a footbridge from Oxford.Road to Deansgate.is needlessly complicating matters, though a new tram line down Oxford Road to the southern suburbs would, I think, be justified on its own merits

If Deansgate were to close (and despite several pages of discussion, is the idea anything more than speculation) and a replacement/mitigation strategy were required for the loss of the Met interchange, I imagine it'd come down to whatever's cheapest and easiest.

 

[edwin_m]

So the answer is close Deansgate station to improve traffic flow of the 14 trains an hour through it and replace the connectivity with metrolink by having a tram spur from Oxford Road station to St Peter’s Square. The tram spur will have the bonus of being another tram end station in a useful position and the forerunner of a new tram line to MRI hospital along the University campus. Perfect.

The junction would be on the busiest section of Metrolink and is mentioned above as the most severe bottleneck on the system. So running to Oxford Road would have to be at the expense of running somewhere else, and because of the extra junction conflict it might mean fewer trams through St Peters Square in total.

 

[yorkie]

This thread is to discuss the proposed Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15/16 project and associated works.

Any ideas for spin-off ideas, alternative ideas, or anything else need to go in a suitable thread in the Speculative Ideas forum.

If Deansgate were to close (and despite several pages of discussion, is the idea anything more than speculation) ...

If it is speculation, the idea needs to go in a separate thread (in the correct forum). If anyone wishes to discuss it further, you are welcome to create one

Also, thanks to @Bletchleyite for creating the Idea: Metrolink down Manchester's Oxford/Wilmslow Road thread, where anyone is welcome to discuss that suggestion.

 

[Greybeard33]

If Deansgate were to close (and despite several pages of discussion, is the idea anything more than speculation) and a replacement/mitigation strategy were required for the loss of the Met interchange, I imagine it'd come down to whatever's cheapest and easiest.

If it is speculation, the idea needs to go in a separate thread (in the correct forum). If anyone wishes to discuss it further, you are welcome to create one

Over a year ago now, but the following posts suggested that possible closure of Deansgate is more than mere speculation:

Deansgate is planned to close after Oxford Road is rebuilt so no point in installing barriers.

Not able to comment any further at the moment, sorry. There is a plan however for the Metrolink bridge to be linked by a moving walkway from Oxford Road station.

 

[yorkie]

If it's planned I am sure someone can find a source.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's planned I am sure someone can find a source.

The Northern Hub Wiki article makes no mention - so maybe it was something born here.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Any info on the Network Rail website is a waste of time.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Any info on the Network Rail website is a waste of time.

No plan to do what would be a fine thing (closing Deansgate). There are discussions and ideas floating about, but nothing more, and that's only because the same themes keep coming up in different studies (e.g. too many stations and flat junctions all in close proximity).

 

[LOL The Irony]

No plan to do what would be a fine thing (closing Deansgate). There are discussions and ideas floating about, but nothing more, and that's only because the same themes keep coming up in different studies (e.g. too many stations and flat junctions all in close proximity).

I was talking about the project in general. NR need a kick up the backside. The copyright info is still dated 2017!

 

[a_c_skinner]

Every so often I travel down a twin track, heavy rail route though a major city. All its stations are two platform. It has complicated junctions and stations at each end yet it, Thameslink, seems to manage more trains per hour than Manchester dreams of. Is simply managing the existing infrastructure more intensively impossible?

 

[Grumpy]

Every so often I travel down a twin track, heavy rail route though a major city. All its stations are two platform. It has complicated junctions and stations at each end yet it, Thameslink, seems to manage more trains per hour than Manchester dreams of. Is simply managing the existing infrastructure more intensively impossible?

If you suggested closing City Thameslink station because it is too close to Blackfriars people would think you were mad

 

[Bletchleyite]

Every so often I travel down a twin track, heavy rail route though a major city. All its stations are two platform. It has complicated junctions and stations at each end yet it, Thameslink, seems to manage more trains per hour than Manchester dreams of. Is simply managing the existing infrastructure more intensively impossible?

You'd need to recast the service so the same principles could be applied as Thameslink - basically a massive simplification which would turn the service into something a lot more like Merseyrail or Thameslink than what is there now. It could be done but there would be a *lot* of complaints.

You'd probably have to do something like the following:-
- All services formed of classes 319, 323, 185 or 150 (or ATW CAF stock)
- A significant capacity increase to reduce overcrowding which causes much of the delay - minimum train length to be 69m i.e. 3x23m, peak trains to be a minimum of 80m i.e. 4x20m
- A total ban on classes 14x, 153, 155, 156, 158, 802, the new TPE EMUs and Mk5 LHCS due to slow loading and unloading
- The ATW service to be diverted to Victoria until the doors-at-thirds CAF stock arrives
- TPE Scottish service to run to Victoria once the 350s go
- Use doubled Class 185s on the TPE service which uses Ordsall rather than 800s/LHCS
- A complete rejig of depots and/or the service such that no changes of traincrew occur in Manchester
- Improved PIS so people can see from all points on the platform which train is next, its formation (in relation to platform locations) and any other relevant information.

That might make it just about workable give or take freight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you suggested closing City Thameslink station because it is too close to Blackfriars people would think you were mad

That's more for capacity reasons. It is a bit stupidly close (and wasn't one closed at weekends years ago?) but you need both due to the risk of platform overcrowding if you didn't. Deansgate doesn't really serve that purpose.

 

[Ianno87]

That's more for capacity reasons. It is a bit stupidly close (and wasn't one closed at weekends years ago?) but you need both due to the risk of platform overcrowding if you didn't. Deansgate doesn't really serve that purpose.

One of the multitude of reasons why Blackfrairs was rebuilt was to shift the stopping position of trains slightly further south from City Thameslink to enable a train to be stood between both stations fully clear of either, so their closeness ceased to be a capacity issue.

 

[mmh]

Every so often I travel down a twin track, heavy rail route though a major city. All its stations are two platform. It has complicated junctions and stations at each end yet it, Thameslink, seems to manage more trains per hour than Manchester dreams of. Is simply managing the existing infrastructure more intensively impossible?

I've been wondering that for a while reading this thread. If it's stopping patterns messing things up, why not have a timetable with everything stopping at Deansgate? That might have a very minor effect of reducing the number of passengers using 13/14 at Piccadilly

 

[MarkyT]

That's more for capacity reasons. It is a bit stupidly close (and wasn't one closed at weekends years ago?) but you need both due to the risk of platform overcrowding if you didn't. Deansgate doesn't really serve that purpose.

Indeed, especially as only a small proportion of trains on the corridor stop at Deansgate, while on Thameslink all trains stop at all stations in the core, like a proper metro. Thameslink trains are also all equipped for the very short fixed block ETCS overlay and ATO, which was easy to arrange with a complete new fleet of the same train type, all with the same performance, mostly in tunnel etc. The ATO isn't in full operation yet I understand though, but then the timetable hasn't ramped up to the full peak capacity of 24tph either.

 

[mmh]

That's more for capacity reasons. It is a bit stupidly close (and wasn't one closed at weekends years ago?) but you need both due to the risk of platform overcrowding if you didn't. Deansgate doesn't really serve that purpose.

Yup, City Thameslink is still closed on Sundays. It might be close in track distance but the north entrance is a real trek from Blackfriars, but in an area of the city which is still pretty much a ghost town at weekends

 

[keith1879]

You'd need to recast the service so the same principles could be applied as Thameslink - basically a massive simplification which would turn the service into something a lot more like Merseyrail or Thameslink than what is there now. It could be done but there would be a *lot* of complaints.

You'd probably have to do something like the following:-
- All services formed of classes 319, 323, 185 or 150 (or ATW CAF stock)
- A significant capacity increase to reduce overcrowding which causes much of the delay - minimum train length to be 69m i.e. 3x23m, peak trains to be a minimum of 80m i.e. 4x20m
- A total ban on classes 14x, 153, 155, 156, 158, 802, the new TPE EMUs and Mk5 LHCS due to slow loading and unloading
- The ATW service to be diverted to Victoria until the doors-at-thirds CAF stock arrives
- TPE Scottish service to run to Victoria once the 350s go
- Use doubled Class 185s on the TPE service which uses Ordsall rather than 800s/LHCS
- A complete rejig of depots and/or the service such that no changes of traincrew occur in Manchester
- Improved PIS so people can see from all points on the platform which train is next, its formation (in relation to platform locations) and any other relevant information.

That might make it just about workable give or take freight.

Lots of ideas there .....some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. But having trawled through a large part of the thread I have yet to see what looks like an objective QUANTITATIVE assessment of the reasons behind the problems of this section of line - we can all quote our personal dislikes but we need more objectivity. Hopefully the next timetable recast will benefit from this kind of analysis.
I have no particular magic solution - my observation for what it's worth is that a lot of trans-pennine services get to Leeds late anyway because the section to York is overloaded and unreliable - the Ordsall chord/Oxford Road section doesn't cause their lateness - it is affected by it. I don't know how much of the problem this causes - but as they are the services I use it's what concerns me.