The arena changed hands in 2010 for just north of £60m (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/new-men-arena-owners-post-897239 )
Any compulsory purchase of the site would be for at least this value, presumably.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
- Status
The arena changed hands in 2010 for just north of £60m (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/new-men-arena-owners-post-897239 )
Any compulsory purchase of the site would be for at least this value, presumably.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Arenas are very difficult things to get built (just look at Bristol now) - the public sector would have to contribute in some way. Any proposal which didn't involve replacement of the arena, probably in the city centre, would be a non starter politically.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It isn't a massive sum when considering a major redevelopment of a city centre main railway station.
As an example, new New St (!) cost £708 million.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/new-street-costs-spiral-over-700m
More capacity does necessarily require extra services. 50% growth (or more) to the Airport can be handled by selectively lengthening trains and some could be served from Piccadilly's terminating platforms. Its probably not the best strategy but it would still work. For instance 2 x 4 coach 331s every 15 minutes between Piccadilly and Manchester Airport would require 8 units + spares. That would provide enormous capacity and still allow for 6tph of long distance services.
There are two legally viable options: a) compulsory purchase at its market value at the start of the project i.e. around £60m and b) build a new arena in some sort of joint venture with the owners with NR/DfT/GMCA taking ownership of the arena on condition that it is demolished. Both mean paying the cost of demolishing a 25 year old arena that generates significant income for its owners. I agree the cost is small for a major project but it would take years to do.
An easier option would be rebuilding 1 or 2 platforms at Rochdale or building 1 or 2 platforms on the western approach of Victoria. 4 through platforms are adequate for Victoria. I doubt the strategy of recent decades to move towards Oxford Road and Victoria having only through services will change. Its only because of Grayling delay and slow electrification that Oxford Road has any terninating services and Victoria as many as it does.
Is there any reason why the arena can't be closed temporarily & demolished, the station doubled in area (back to what it was?) and a new / replacement arena put back on top?
The location seems ideal, and New St has had a shopping complex on top for years now, Liverpool St an Office block so why not an arena over a bigger Victoria?
I would just beg for a much higher trainshed, maybe not as high as Basel is but much airier than either of the two UK examples.
The location seems ideal, and New St has had a shopping complex on top for years now, Liverpool St an Office block so why not an arena over a bigger Victoria?
I would just beg for a much higher trainshed, maybe not as high as Basel is but much airier than either of the two UK examples.
It would mean no indoor concert venue for at least a couple of years, probably longer. The easier option would be to first build a new arena across the road on the huge car park and then link itit a footbridge to a rebuilt Victoria. However the land is already earmarked for development as part of an expanded city centre so that option will disappear soon.
This thread has shown that 4 through platforms can easily support 16tph of through services. How about 14tph of through trains: 4tph could terminate at Rochdale (by rebuilding its 2 closed platforms), 2tph at Stalybridge, 4tph running through Standedge and 4tph through Calder Valley / to Burnley. Add a 100m terninating platform to the north west of platform 6 and one as an indent of platform 3 and that would be plenty of capacity without a major rebuild. Transparent roofs for the middle sections of platforms 3 and 4 would reduce the underground station feel of 3-6. That really should have been part of the tender for the roof for 1, 2 and Metrolink.
It'd be cheaper to re-do an Exchange station in Manchester shfting the platforms there and adding extra ones, rather than getting rid of the arena. Probably the only realistic way of getting 6 lines through Vic now, unless the other side of the wall on 6 can be taken back in rail use. Sure I've asked what's the other side but I can't remember what the answer was.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I am so very pleased that you have also decided not to demolish both Cheetham's School for Music and the Manchester Cathedral, through pehaps HenryVIII might well have thought those to be good ideas had railways been around in Tudor times...
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This is a fair point, but Exchange of course is not served by Metrolink.
I doubt there is sufficient space now that most of the site has been built on. 4 through platforms at Victoria is sufficient as long as they are not used to terminate services.
Problem is TPE services that go on Ordsall Chord can easily get terminated at Victoria given the timetable etc...
I know but it would be an improvement if no services where scheduled to.
Andrew Haines, new chief exec of Network Rail, gave qualified support to the Grayling position on platforms 15&16 when speaking to the Commons transport committee on Monday.
This video has been linked in the TP upgrade thread but the P15-16 stuff is at about 18:02:45.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/40f6c865-7c9f-4caa-890f-cd9ba8dabc47
This video has been linked in the TP upgrade thread but the P15-16 stuff is at about 18:02:45.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/40f6c865-7c9f-4caa-890f-cd9ba8dabc47
In brief he seems to confirm that the preferred project is digital signalling and longer trains, and that it would cost too much to build 15/16.
As close to damnit a killing off to my ears.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Having sat through the whole session while Haines' view on delays/punctuality is quite encouraging as far as P15/16 is concerned he is having to whistle to Grayling's tune. And that tune is that P15/16 is so expensive that he'd rather not spend the money if he thinks that "digital signalling" can provide a solution at lower cost. All very reasonable but extremely difficult to do without near complete replacement of the fleets using the route. Though Haines himself did point out that the use of end-door stock is in itself a contributor to the problem. Not necessarily fatal to the scheme, more like kicking it into the edge of the rough ie not quite long grass but out of immediate sight. I wonder to what extent the financial equation has been upset by the stalling of the Mayfield redevelopment...?
How dare you suggest that the Secretary of State might allow his views on what rail projects should and should not proceed to interfere with Network Rail's independence ? After all, as any good transport select committee knows, the SoS has no involvement in the actual running of the railways
He also mentioned the possibility of replacing the trains with ones with more or differently positioned doors.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The service could certainly be recast to be more like Thameslink, i.e. only local services running via Castlefield and all run using EMUs and DMUs with doors at thirds (basically taking it back to what it was before the Windsor Link was built in the 1980s), but that would render a certain Chord the white elephant it was from day one, which wouldn't meet with Government policy
Capacity would also help a lot - a minimum train length through Castlefield of 80m, possibly longer, would be a good start. Much of the slowness is caused by overcrowding.
That's horrendous. Platforms 13 and 14 are overcrowded and unsafe at the moment. All of the extra capacity for passengers that was bought by constructing the satellite lounge in 2002 has been used up. Does someone actually need to fall from the platform in order to get 15 and 16 built?
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Visited P13/14 today, and discovered NR has removed all the buildings from at least the western half of the platforms.
I know this has been in the pipeline for some time (to increase circulation room and passenger safety).
Always rather shabby, P13/14 are now colder and windier than ever, with no shelter from the breeze (and it's still summer!).
If it was the first part of a wider scheme for a new island platform and concourse it would be bearable, but leaving the station in this state indefinitely is highly unappealing.
The increased numbers of TPE services has also bumped up passenger numbers and congestion in the concourse area.
jonesy3001
Established Member
We'll be calling it the cassandra crossing soon, if nothing happens between piccadilly and oxford rd.
The service could certainly be recast to be more like Thameslink, i.e. only local services running via Castlefield and all run using EMUs and DMUs with doors at thirds (basically taking it back to what it was before the Windsor Link was built in the 1980s), but that would render a certain Chord the white elephant it was from day one, which wouldn't meet with Government policy
Well, not quite, as you could still have local to medium distance services using 1/3 / 2/3 door stock. Or you could continue running 1/3 / 2/3 door stock for the benefit of holidaymakers from towns 100 miles away....
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You could remove those services, sending them to Victoria instead, and stopping using a certain Chord that should not have been built in preference to P15/16, and truncate Liverpool-Norwich to Manchester. So local services only, either using Class 319 or 2 x Class 150 (giving a near identical door spacing which could be marked on the platform).
Not desirable, but certainly an option if Thameslink style operations are needed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
TBH I think overcrowding probably is a bigger issue than door layouts - 11-car Pendolinos load and disgorge lots of commuters at MKC with little difficulty, simply because there is enough space for them to board and alight without pushing past people.
So if the 5-car sets end up overcrowded, there has to be a will to increase them to 6 or even 7.
And a minimum train length for local services is sorely needed on that route. If anything really doesn't justify at least a 4-car Class 150 or 319 on its own, portion-work it.
So if the 5-car sets end up overcrowded, there has to be a will to increase them to 6 or even 7.
And a minimum train length for local services is sorely needed on that route. If anything really doesn't justify at least a 4-car Class 150 or 319 on its own, portion-work it.
- Status