It would be reasonably to expect Manchester United to pay for a replacement two platform station to the east (on passing loops), which could be used for regular traffic as well as match day extras.
That would be good, but I very much doubt it - the tram serves the area reasonably anyway and is what most people used on matchdays.
...and in about 12-months time it will have a new stop on the Trafford Centre lineThat would be good, but I very much doubt it - the tram serves the area reasonably anyway and is what most people used on matchdays.
Indeed. It is being designed with crowd control facilities similar to those at Etihad and is likely to be the main way of shifting people to and from matches....and in about 12-months time it will have a new stop on the Trafford Centre line
Plans have been available for years, they have bought most (all?) of the houses on the section of Railway Road that they need to bridge the railway. It was always planned to span all the tracks, I think the station is just 'in the way'Not sure how they could expand the Moneybags Utd. stand across the line - the track through MUFC Halt platform also forms the exit from Trafford Park Freightliner Terminal...
Indeed, the platform line acts as a headshunt for the terminal and is also the only route into all bar one of the reception roads on the Euroterminal side.Not sure how they could expand the Moneybags Utd. stand across the line - the track through MUFC Halt platform also forms the exit from Trafford Park Freightliner Terminal...
Should United expand it will close anyway. The only expansion of Old Trafford that is remotely financially viable would be replacing the stand next to the station. The club has suggested building over the line but the cost is prohibitive. A cheaper approach would be taking the platform and third track land for the stand but building a plaza (for access and fire escape) over the rest of the line. That would give the club another 15m of land which would mean they could build a new, slightly bigger stand but crucially designed with a big emphasis on hospitality seating and facilities. Old Trafford is still the largest football club stadium in the UK by 11-12,000 seats but its match day revenue advantage has significantly shrunk in the last 15 years. It would be reasonably to expect Manchester United to pay for a replacement two platform station to the east (on passing loops), which could be used for regular traffic as well as match day extras.
In the event of a stadium expansion it could (and should) be a condition of planning permission that public transport provision is increased by the number of seats added. This sort of trade off has limited Arsenal and Tottenham to 60-62,000 seats and imposes a limit of about 60,000 on Anfield's maximum future capacity. For the latter, the club could fill much more than 60,000 seats but the council has said it will never allow it without major public transport improvements. The cost of any of the options makes Anfield expansion past 60,000 financially unviable. If United wants to expand its South Stand by say 5000 seats then it will be expected to increase public transport provision not reduce it. Whether that cost would make expansion of the stadium unviable would be a decision for the club.
There’s already loads of skip-stopping on the locals as it is, just to wedge them between the two fasts each hour, and Warrington West to add to that soon, so I doubt another stop on those would be viable as it stands. My feeling is that it’s getting to the point where the only sensible option is to split the stoppers in the middle somehow to create better margins and maybe give a better opportunity for this sort of thing, although trying to shift large crowds with local trains that are already full of local people maybe isn’t the best idea anyway.I believe you will find the gap in respect of seat numbers between 1st and 2nd place has reduced now that the new White Hart Lan has opened.
In terms of the station layout you suggest for the replacement Manchester United FC Halt how do you propose to timetable it. The extra journey time added for the stop will mean slots missed into the Castlefield corridor.
No, the only access to the platform line is from the east.Could the Northern Oxford Road to Liverpool stopper which RTT shows as passing MUF Halt stop and provide some kind of service on match days if the club wanted it to?
I believe you will find the gap in respect of seat numbers between 1st and 2nd place has reduced now that the new White Hart Lan has opened.
In terms of the station layout you suggest for the replacement Manchester United FC Halt how do you propose to timetable it. The extra journey time added for the stop will mean slots missed into the Castlefield corridor.
What new public transport provision did either Arsenal or Tottenham provide when they built their new stadia (in each case adding about 20,000 extra seats)? Arsenal's stadium actually resulted in a loss of transport provision, as Holloway Road and Drayton Park stations close when there are matches taking place/ And while there might be an argument that United should provide a replacement for the halt (although not a very strong one, given that it's no longer in use on match days) I certainly don't see why they should be required to fund a brand new station for everyday use.
Regardless of this, the idea of expanding the stand by building a bridge (really more of a tunnel) across the line sounds a lot more easily said than done to me. Is it feasible for construction to take place while trains are running? Are there any other examples of major third party construction projects bridging lines like this?
How about the infamous Tesco tunnel at Gerrards Cross? That involved filling in a cutting, with the railway in a concrete tunnel within it, solely to provide space for a supermarket and its car park.Regardless of this, the idea of expanding the stand by building a bridge (really more of a tunnel) across the line sounds a lot more easily said than done to me. Is it feasible for construction to take place while trains are running? Are there any other examples of major third party construction projects bridging lines like this?
Regardless of this, the idea of expanding the stand by building a bridge (really more of a tunnel) across the line sounds a lot more easily said than done to me. Is it feasible for construction to take place while trains are running? Are there any other examples of major third party construction projects bridging lines like this?
The difficulty is that the stoppers already run as semi fast for half the route - alternately all stops Liverpool to Warrington then principal stops to Manchester or limited stops to Warrington then all stops to Manchester. To take any stops out would substantially reduce the number of services per hour some stations receive which would be a big no no, as you mention yourself.My feeling is that it’s getting to the point where the only sensible option is to split the stoppers in the middle somehow to create better margins and maybe give a better opportunity for this sort of thing, although trying to shift large crowds with local trains that are already full of local people maybe isn’t the best idea anyway.
There’s already loads of skip-stopping on the locals as it is, just to wedge them between the two fasts each hour, and Warrington West to add to that soon, so I doubt another stop on those would be viable as it stands. My feeling is that it’s getting to the point where the only sensible option is to split the stoppers in the middle somehow to create better margins and maybe give a better opportunity for this sort of thing, although trying to shift large crowds with local trains that are already full of local people maybe isn’t the best idea anyway.
As does the rebuilt Lansdowne Road in Dublin. That one still has a station though!The plans for the new Chelsea ground (which have now been shelved) involved a similar thing
Rather than trying to take stops out, I meant physically splitting the route in two for the stoppers, so rather than trying to wedge a stopper between two fasts, you have two stoppers each serving half the route - so one would leave Liverpool immediately behind the fast (as now) but would only need to get to Warrington and shunt clear before the next fast catches up, whilst another stopper would have already left there to pick up the stops over the rest of the route. I’m not sure how that’d work out for local journeys across Warrington (e.g Padgate to Sankey) or indeed how well the current layout at Warrington would cope with all these shunts.The difficulty is that the stoppers already run as semi fast for half the route - alternately all stops Liverpool to Warrington then principal stops to Manchester or limited stops to Warrington then all stops to Manchester. To take any stops out would substantially reduce the number of services per hour some stations receive which would be a big no no, as you mention yourself.
Generally the whole route has a number of pinch points which limits the options to add any more station calls - as mentioned the Castlefield corridor is already struggling, plus slotting services across Allerton junction can be tight as some points of the day, and just to top it off the East Midlands/ Northern Airport services are already just behind the stoppers by the time they reach Liverpool or Manchester. Hence why Sankey is losing most of its calls once Warrington West opens.
It is, but with 2tph ‘slow’ from each end. Turning one of the two back at Glazebrook East is an interesting twist on that!...
Which I think is roughly what you were suggesting?
It is, but with 2tph ‘slow’ from each end. Turning one of the two back at Glazebrook East is an interesting twist on that!
tesco at Gerrards Cross?What new public transport provision did either Arsenal or Tottenham provide when they built their new stadia (in each case adding about 20,000 extra seats)? Arsenal's stadium actually resulted in a loss of transport provision, as Holloway Road and Drayton Park stations close when there are matches taking place/ And while there might be an argument that United should provide a replacement for the halt (although not a very strong one, given that it's no longer in use on match days) I certainly don't see why they should be required to fund a brand new station for everyday use.
Regardless of this, the idea of expanding the stand by building a bridge (really more of a tunnel) across the line sounds a lot more easily said than done to me. Is it feasible for construction to take place while trains are running? Are there any other examples of major third party construction projects bridging lines like this?
Err, as I suggested in post 20 a little way above here?tesco at Gerrards Cross?
oops. missed that.Err, as I suggested in post 20 a little way above here?
Landsdowne Road has already been mentioned, Federation Square in Melbourne was decked over what is now 13 lines with construction of the buildings ongoing after the deck was completed. Take a few possessions to build the tunnel then it’s away you go as per a “normal” construction project.Regardless of this, the idea of expanding the stand by building a bridge (really more of a tunnel) across the line sounds a lot more easily said than done to me. Is it feasible for construction to take place while trains are running? Are there any other examples of major third party construction projects bridging lines like this?