Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Andyh82]

Operationally could North Transpennine services to the Airport go back to running via Guide Bridge and reversing in the main shed?

Although this pattern supposedly caused conflicts, I never used to hear about constant delays and disruption like what running via Platforms 13 & 14 has caused?

 

[Wtloild]

One option I feel would be worth looking at but is never talked about would be to rebuild and rename Salford Central to allow for termination of a load of commuter trains from the west side.

Considering the issues of TPE trying various means of preventing commuters using their long-distance services, and that the congestion on Northern services largely starts and ends at Bolton, I'd wondered about the scope of using the bay platform at Bolton for a regular Bolton-Manc shuttle - the main prohibiting factor being the lack of west-facing terminating platforms at Victoria.
This could be a solution to that.

 

[Chester1]

Operationally could North Transpennine services to the Airport go back to running via Guide Bridge and reversing in the main shed?

Although this pattern supposedly caused conflicts, I never used to hear about constant delays and disruption like what running via Platforms 13 & 14 has caused?

The paths freed up for 1-12 have already been used. It would mean cutting services that have been in use for quite a while now. Increasing capacity of Piccadilly 1-12 was the main objective of the Ordsall Chord and the cross city link was only secondary.

 

[Senex]

Operationally could North Transpennine services to the Airport go back to running via Guide Bridge and reversing in the main shed?

Although this pattern supposedly caused conflicts, I never used to hear about constant delays and disruption like what running via Platforms 13 & 14 has caused?

Surely not, unless someone is willing to face up to the cost of building a flyover over the fast lines so that with a reversal in 1 to 4 trains could reach the slows (and so the airport lines) without fouling the fasts. The need to cross the whole Piccadilly throat on the level could never be anything other than a najor problem for timekeeping and reliability and was a complication in the design of a modern layout for the approaches to the station.

 

[railfan100]

Two new platforms will not resolve the strategic failure that has been present for many decades. Pennine services moving from Victoria in 1990 started this mess and commenced the problem just so the land could be sold off for the MEN building on the cheap. Then over the years the airport services added significantly to the problem. To fix in the real sense needs a number of flyovers plus the new platforms it will cost many 10s if not hundreds of millions or just use Victoria more if only the 6 through platforms were not lost.....

 

[Andyh82]

The paths freed up for 1-12 have already been used. It would mean cutting services that have been in use for quite a while now. Increasing capacity of Piccadilly 1-12 was the main objective of the Ordsall Chord and the cross city link was only secondary.

What extra services have been introduced from 1-12 (I’m not questioning you, I honestly don’t know)

 

[Killingworth]

What extra services have been introduced from 1-12 (I’m not questioning you, I honestly don’t know)

An extra service here and there, they all add up e.g. Hope Valley stoppers were every 2 hours now hourly.

 

[TrainTube]

Fewer but longer trains is probably quite a good solution, but like South Western Railway there is little margin for error and if one service is delayed, you get a domino effect. The tight schedule isn't helped by the fact that for some reason almost every TPE from Scotland to the Airport is delayed by more than 5 mins.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Fewer but longer trains is probably quite a good solution

Can you give some route examples of what you mean by stating a comparison of the current service frequency on such routes to this new service frequency that "fewer trains" will so entail.

 

[Killingworth]

Fewer but longer trains is probably quite a good solution, but like South Western Railway there is little margin for error and if one service is delayed, you get a domino effect. The tight schedule isn't helped by the fact that for some reason almost every TPE from Scotland to the Airport is delayed by more than 5 mins.

Lots of little choke points many miles from Manchester on all lines. Sorting them out may take tens of millions apiece, and take 3-4 years till they get signed off. However they may be easier to fix than 15/16. Together with longer trains (plus platform extensions) and some rationalisation of timetables they may allow broadly the present level of services to be continued and cope with greater loadings - for the next 5-10 years. After that we may be struggling and much more major interventions may be needed.

15/16 is part of the future but we have to look at fly overs, fly unders and tunnels to allow conflicting traffic flows to cross paths more easily. Crossrail proves that costs billions and is almost a bottomless pit of expense.

 

[TrainTube]

Can you give some route examples of what you mean by stating a comparison of the current service frequency on such routes to this new service frequency that "fewer trains" will so entail.

The Blackpool North trains are every half an hour, usually a 3 or 4 car 331. They could make this service hourly, with a 6/7/8 car 331.
The Hourly Barrow to Man Airport could be 2 hourly, but again, a 6/7/8 car 331 instead of 3/4 car.
I'm not suggesting this plan for the long term, but with increasing capacity until and if platforms 15/16 are built, then this is probably the best option.
I've also noticed that freight is pathed through these platforms, which I find a bit unfortunate, there should really be a way to divert traffic from Trafford Park, shame they didn't add a curve when building the Ordsall Chord, that would have freed up space in 13/14

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Blackpool North trains are every half an hour, usually a 3 or 4 car 331. They could make this service hourly, with a 6/7/8 car 331.The Hourly Barrow to Man Airport could be 2 hourly, but again, a 6/7/8 car 331 instead of 3/4 car.

How many of the intermediate stations will be affected by their existing platform lengths by 6/7/8 coach services on the Blackpool and Barrow-in-Furness routes?

 

[TrainTube]

How many of the intermediate stations will be affected by their platform lengths by 6/7/8 coach services on the Blackpool and Barrow-in-Furness routes?

You could use selective door opening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You could use selective door opening.

Remember there are no corridor connections in either of the Class 195 and Class 331 units, when thinking of selective door opening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Blackpool North trains are every half an hour, usually a 3 or 4 car 331. They could make this service hourly, with a 6/7/8 car 331.

I think it'd make more sense just to start/terminate the Barrows/Windermeres at Preston or even Lancaster and keep two Blackpools. That way you not only remove a train from Castlefield but also a DMU from under the wires.

 

[CdBrux]

We also need to remember what transfers people onto rail. As I understood it frequency is one such thing and thus cutting a twice per hour service back hourly needs to be considered with that in mind

 

[Bletchleyite]

We also need to remember what transfers people onto rail. As I understood it frequency is one such thing and thus cutting a twice per hour service back hourly needs to be considered with that in mind

I'd figure that most people would prefer an hourly service that is punctual than a half-hourly service that is delayed or cancelled by the minutes. I think once you go below hourly that probably isn't the case though - other than very rural stuff, if you're going to go below hourly you might as well pull it entirely.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We also need to remember what transfers people onto rail. As I understood it frequency is one such thing and thus cutting a twice per hour service back hourly needs to be considered with that in mind

Frequency and no change of train required I would say gets people to go by train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Frequency and no change of train required I would say gets people to go by train.

But also punctuality and reliability. Unless you get onto very frequent services (I'd say every 10 minutes or better) if it's really unreliable (e.g. Northern and TPE at present) you'll send people running for their car keys.

You might attract people using an "on paper" half hourly timetable, but they'll only travel the once if their journey is a disaster.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But also punctuality and reliability.

you are of course correct.
Frequency
Reliability
No change of train required
Punctuality +/- 5 minutes ideally

 

[InOban]

The minimum frequency which will attract passengers depends on the journey length. In an urban area it needs to be at at least 4/hour , no need to consult the timetable. I would thought that Blackpool needs 2/hour.

 

[Jozhua]

The Blackpool North trains are every half an hour, usually a 3 or 4 car 331. They could make this service hourly, with a 6/7/8 car 331.
The Hourly Barrow to Man Airport could be 2 hourly, but again, a 6/7/8 car 331 instead of 3/4 car.
I'm not suggesting this plan for the long term, but with increasing capacity until and if platforms 15/16 are built, then this is probably the best option.
I've also noticed that freight is pathed through these platforms, which I find a bit unfortunate, there should really be a way to divert traffic from Trafford Park, shame they didn't add a curve when building the Ordsall Chord, that would have freed up space in 13/14

What about all the people in North Manchester *aka me* who rely on Castlefield services to acess Piccadilly?

I only use Castlefield to connect to other services, so a reduction in frequency for this would be even worse. I honestly think reducing Ordsall Chord services is the right answer, as this is the heavy log that broke the famished camels back!

I think it'd make more sense just to start/terminate the Barrows/Windermeres at Preston or even Lancaster and keep two Blackpools. That way you not only remove a train from Castlefield but also a DMU from under the wires.

That's not a bad idea, I mean there's already TPE 350's that go to Oxenholme?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a bad idea, I mean there's already TPE 350's that go to Oxenholme?

There are indeed.

 

[Kimi]

If 1-12 are fully occupied - and the number of double occupied platforms in the peak suggests that too, there is another option..

• Platform 0. Look at the Google satellite map, adjacent to platform 1 is network rail parking lot for its own vehicles. Is this the best use of capacity? Create a platform 0 (and platform -1 too,, maybe even platform -2).

You need obviously to use more track to take advantage of this? Great, because the first quarter mile is available (more network rail buildings and vans), still on the east side, would fit 1-2 lines, and when that finishes there is a track's worth of space on the west side, almost (but not quite) getting you 7 lines as far as Ashbury's Jct.

Alternatively, a fly-under due south of Ashbury's on land which is currently not built on, would give you conflict free access from guide bridge in the east to Oxford road lines..

Easy?

 

[CHAPS2034]

Platform 0. Look at the Google satellite map, adjacent to platform 1 is network rail parking lot for its own vehicles. Is this the best use of capacity? Create a platform 0 (and platform -1 too,, maybe even platform -2).

That area is where the HS2 station will go....perhaps, sometime maybe.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

That area is where the HS2 station will go....perhaps, sometime maybe.....

Of course when (if) it does it'll free up 2 platforms in the main shed - there won't be 3tph IC Manchester-London on the classic lines any more, probably only 1tph would make sense.

 

[Howardh]

I take it the extra trains from Southport through Bolton will terminate (or go through) Victoria and not Piccadilly so there won't be an effect on the corridor? I haven't looked but I doubt I will be getting more trains in the evening to Piccadilly, think it's 2ph after 7pm form Bolton.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I take it the extra trains from Southport through Bolton will terminate (or go through) Victoria and not Piccadilly so there won't be an effect on the corridor? I haven't looked but I doubt I will be getting more trains in the evening to Piccadilly, think it's 2ph after 7pm form Bolton.

Southport's service will be one through Vic and one through Castlefield, both via Bolton. It's being achieved without adding an extra service to Castlefield by swapping the Wigan NW terminator with the Southport if I recall.

 

[Greybeard33]

What extra services have been introduced from 1-12 (I’m not questioning you, I honestly don’t know)

An extra service here and there, they all add up e.g. Hope Valley stoppers were every 2 hours now hourly.

And the Buxton services have doubled in frequency from hourly to 2tph. The TPE reversals before May 2018 were 3-car 185s that could be squeezed into multiple occupied platforms. It would be much more difficult to find platform space to reverse TPE's new 5-car 802s and Mk5As.

 

[Killingworth]

And the Buxton services have doubled in frequency from hourly to 2tph. The TPE reversals before May 2018 were 3-car 185s that could be squeezed into multiple occupied platforms. It would be much more difficult to find platform space to reverse TPE's new 5-car 802s and Mk5As.

6 coach TPE services on South Pennine require 3 to be dropped at Piccadilly, so that's more platform space needed more often from today.