Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[randyrippley]

I wonder what would happen if TPE suggested the curtailment of any long established airport service to no longer go there.

I’m thinking the reaction from passengers, the media both TV and papers, user groups, every politician within a 50 mile radius of the route, metro mayors, opposition politicians...

I think you're overestimating the reaction. Anyone from the north on the M6 corridor is more likely to use taxis. Quicker, door-to-door, no luggage carrying, cheaper if you have a family, and the taxi is waiting for you when you arrive at stupid-o-clock in the morning.

 

[Killingworth]

I wonder what would happen if TPE suggested the curtailment of any long established airport service to no longer go there.

I’m thinking the reaction from passengers, the media both TV and papers, user groups, every politician within a 50 mile radius of the route, metro mayors, opposition politicians...

Declaration of interest. My station has direct trains to Manchester Airport, although more often than not a change is necessary. Currently 1 in 20 trains is being cancelled and on a bad day it's higher. 1 train in 5 is 10 minutes or more late, some by much longer.

Which train would an air passenger choose, direct or with the uncertainty of a change? On Monday morning 9 boarded the first direct train of the day and 8 went to the airport. From their luggage I'd say all 8 were flying that morning.

TPE trains on Saturday mornings out of Sheffield are rammed full so the savvy go by Northern and change. It takes 20-30 minutes longer, but they're lured by a fare that's usually half or a third the price. Problem now is that the Northern services are also rammed full! Run 6 cars and equalise the fares and more would/will book though on TPE.

There are many factors in all this.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Best way to get passengers to Manchester Airport is with a dedicated non-stop shuttle from a rebuilt Mayfield station. Turn it into a remote passenger terminal with luggage handling and booking in desks, and security screening so passengers are cleared for flight before they get to the airport. Make everyone change at Piccadilly and move to Mayfield and book in. Mayfield itself would be a secure dedicated outstation from the airport. The two would be linked with a travellator - still shorter than many airport ones.

Noting there are substantial area redevelopment plans for quite a sizeable portion of land area where the former Mayfield railway station is so situate, does anyone know how that former railway station would be affected by these plans?

 

[Jozhua]

Noting there are substantial area redevelopment plans for quite a sizeable portion of land area where the former Mayfield railway station is so situate, does anyone know how that former railway station would be affected by these plans?

Hmm and then there's basically putting the entire section of railway in a secure area, finding a way to shuttle luggage and get a rail link to each individual terminal, it's basically impossible without building an underground railway from scratch!

If it were reasonably possible though, it would be fantastic.

However, for the time being, some functional rail/tram/bus links and perhaps a generally less terrible airport experience would be nice!

 

[Killingworth]

Hmm and then there's basically putting the entire section of railway in a secure area, finding a way to shuttle luggage and get a rail link to each individual terminal, it's basically impossible without building an underground railway from scratch!

If it were reasonably possible though, it would be fantastic.

However, for the time being, some functional rail/tram/bus links and perhaps a generally less terrible airport experience would be nice!

An underground railway from scratch, eh?

Future generations will wonder how it came about that we'd riddled the land beneath London with electrified rail tunnels 100 years ago, much of that tunnel beneath sea level and the Thames, yet very little more outside the capital than the big canal and railway tunnels constructed even longer ago. If it could be done 150 years ago it must be possible to do more today

The Hope Valley line is my route to Manchester taking 50 minutes from Sheffield, although most trains are late and an hour should be allowed. A car journey is no better, probably worse.

A reopened Woodhead alignment would be little better than the present track, prilmarily due to congestion both approaching and at the cities at each end. For huge sums of cash 10-15 minutes might be taken off that hour.

Build a straight and level tunnel between the two city centre stations, 32 miles, and a journey time of 20 minutes becomes very feasible. No windows needed, but a video of the Peak District can be played to those who want to know where they are. No public inquiries about dispoiling the countryside, disturbing wild life or demolishing houses. A few years of surface disruption to get it built then all restored as it was. Mind numbingly expensive, but it's totally possible. Just ask the Swiss or Norwegians to cost it all, they know how to do such projects.

Look how fast railways expanded after the Stockton and Darlington began in 1825. We've let it slip too much, particularly in the last 50 years.

Or maybe forget railways and recruit more doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, or police?

 

[Bantamzen]

I know that you use the term "Ringway" as something of a disparagement, but I really wish you would not do so. Manchester Airport has grown to become one of the major airports of Britain.

Manchester Airport is the bee in the @Bletchleyite Manc-Bahn master plan bonnet. Without this dratted airport and it's 40% expansion plan Manchester's rail network could be all be converted into a Manchester-centric suburban network. Of course all of this ignores who owns, and subsequently benefits from these expansion plans. Which is odd because the owners may well be able to use said benefits to improve a certain suburban light rail network in the area...

I wonder what would happen if TPE suggested the curtailment of any long established airport service to no longer go there.

I’m thinking the reaction from passengers, the media both TV and papers, user groups, every politician within a 50 mile radius of the route, metro mayors, opposition politicians...

Owners of the airport....

It has indeed. My using it in a disparaging manner relates to the demand for a direct service from everywhere to it, which is both unrealistic and a significant cause of the problems we have at the moment.

There should certainly be no more direct services to it without removing one for each new one.

To be fair I could be tempted to say that they should remove two of the TPEs to replace one with a Picc-Airport all stations Northern EMU and the other with a Calder Valley local operated using a Class 195 better suited to the high loadings from Vic to Picc.

So you'd replace a service that serves a number of locations along a main line with one from the Calder Valley? As a Bradfordian I'd love to see a direct link, but even I am pragmatic enough to realise that cities like Leeds, York & Newcastle will get priority. And if the Castlefield Corridor can't handle another path, then I for one accept that this will just have to be shelved. The suggestion above that the Piccadilly-Huddersfield stopper be extended to Bradford isn't the daftest, with Bradford & Halifax punters having a more reliable (timetable melts notwithstanding) connection at Huddersfield onto airport services, as well as reducing platform crush in Manchester.

However as per my light hearted ribbing above, the fact remains is that the airport is growing and is no longer just a once-a-year bucket & spade flight serving airport. You are really going to have to accept this instead of fantasising about an airport shuttle. Manchester's platforms cannot cope with your additional planned interchanges, and with the combination of up to 40% more punters and the parking / drop-off charges at Manchester becoming increasingly extortionate, you can expect even more people wanting to use the train there. So the TOCs are going to be keen to further grow these markets (Manchester Airport station has seen 25% growth in a few short years already), and I'm sure quietly the owners of the airport would prefer to speed train passengers through central Manchester and into the airside retail areas.

Your good self and a few others still seem convinced that few people use these long distance services, but my experience has been very different. Travelling to and from Vienna recently I saw a lot of my fellow Yorkshiremen & folk from beyond using the TPEs right to the airport, cabin / hold luggage in tow. And whenever I use TPE airport services to elsewhere on the dark side of the Pennines, luggage bound for aircraft are a regular feature. So I'm guessing that TPE won't be too keen to tip people off in Manchester (although I am surprised you haven't suggested terminating them at Stalybridge so as to keep out of the way of Bletch-Bahn) when they can pick up a bit more revenue whisking them all the way to the travellators above Manchester Airport station.

What is needed is no more excuses from government, and getting on with P15/16 at Piccadilly, get Oxford Road developed to give 4 full length, fully accessible platforms in use, and get the signalling sorted to maximise capacity potential. Nothing less a is sticking plaster solution.

 

[Ianno87]

16 minutes layover would be inadequate for the Cleethorpes service, which is frequently delayed at some point on its long route. It currently gets 28 minutes at the Airport, but even so it is often turned short at Piccadilly to recover longer delays. For robustness it would be necessary to have a 76 minute layover at Piccadilly, with the same number of diagrams as now. Cluttering up a bay platform and making Airport passengers change, just to save a bit of fuel.

16 minutes is plenty, given that in extremis it can be turned in two or three minutes. If anything, unpicking its crossing moves at Piccadilly will substantially improve its typical eastbound performance.

Non-airline users can use the tram, thats why its there.
As for traffic from the north and west, anything you don't want to send transpennine can go via Victoria, then go on a circular route to the east of the city back into Piccadilly and terminate. You'd have to reinstate a curve around Ardwick to access Piccadilly from the Etihad direction, but it looks like the old trackbed is still there, but if its not there's plenty of semi-derelict land there to work with. It was intended to be done for the Commonwealth games but got culled from the budget as it couldn't be completed in time. That way your north / west commuters have the option of which side of the city to use.

1) No, people can't use the tram. Far too slow to be practical for, say, a daily commute to an office at the Airport.

2) Where is the terminal capacity at Picc going to come from for North/West services coming round to terminate in the main shed? The available land on that side is already earmarked for HS2. Plus it misses out the key destination of Oxford Rd, remembering that, after the trip round, Piccadilly is fairly peripheral to much of the city centre.

 

[Ianno87]

An underground railway from scratch, eh?

Future generations will wonder how it came about that we'd riddled the land beneath London with electrified rail tunnels 100 years ago, much of that tunnel beneath sea level and the Thames, yet very little more outside the capital than the big canal and railway tunnels constructed even longer ago. If it could be done 150 years ago it must be possible to do more today

The Hope Valley line is my route to Manchester taking 50 minutes from Sheffield, although most trains are late and an hour should be allowed. A car journey is no better, probably worse.

A reopened Woodhead alignment would be little better than the present track, prilmarily due to congestion both approaching and at the cities at each end. For huge sums of cash 10-15 minutes might be taken off that hour.

Build a straight and level tunnel between the two city centre stations, 32 miles, and a journey time of 20 minutes becomes very feasible. No windows needed, but a video of the Peak District can be played to those who want to know where they are. No public inquiries about dispoiling the countryside, disturbing wild life or demolishing houses. A few years of surface disruption to get it built then all restored as it was. Mind numbingly expensive, but it's totally possible. Just ask the Swiss or Norwegians to cost it all, they know how to do such projects.

Look how fast railways expanded after the Stockton and Darlington began in 1825. We've let it slip too much, particularly in the last 50 years.

Or maybe forget railways and recruit more doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, or police?

No need to build an underground railway when there's an existing line already there....

(Although noting that HS2 will itself be an underground railway between Piccadilly and the Airport, but serving a much, much wider purpose!)

 

[randyrippley]

Hmm and then there's basically putting the entire section of railway in a secure area, finding a way to shuttle luggage and get a rail link to each individual terminal, it's basically impossible without building an underground railway from scratch!

If it were reasonably possible though, it would be fantastic.

However, for the time being, some functional rail/tram/bus links and perhaps a generally less terrible airport experience would be nice!

OK if you can't make it a secure terminal, you could still rebuild Mayfield to become a dedicated airport terminal with everyone changing at Piccadilly

 

[randyrippley]

16 minutes is plenty, given that in extremis it can be turned in two or three minutes. If anything, unpicking its crossing moves at Piccadilly will substantially improve its typical eastbound performance.



1) No, people can't use the tram. Far too slow to be practical for, say, a daily commute to an office at the Airport.

2) Where is the terminal capacity at Picc going to come from for North/West services coming round to terminate in the main shed? The available land on that side is already earmarked for HS2. Plus it misses out the key destination of Oxford Rd, remembering that, after the trip round, Piccadilly is fairly peripheral to much of the city centre.

theres enough derelict land to the north of the station to double the size of the trainshed if required. Currently used for parking

 

[Ianno87]

theres enough derelict land to the north of the station to double the size of the trainshed if required. Currently used for parking

No, that's the land that HS2 will use.

 

[randyrippley]

No, that's the land that HS2 will use.

going off topic, but how does that work, seems an illogical place to put it: wrong side of the station and no westward facing access

 

[notlob.divad]

Noting there are substantial area redevelopment plans for quite a sizeable portion of land area where the former Mayfield railway station is so situate, does anyone know how that former railway station would be affected by these plans?

There is a really simple solution to that. Cancel the development plans. Land adjacent to nationally significant infrastructure should be safeguarded against un-nessesary development. If only we has previously safeguarded parts of our national infrastructure instead of selling them off, we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

 

[Ianno87]

going off topic, but how does that work, seems an illogical place to put it: wrong side of the station and no westward facing access

It points south, and the tracks drop into a tunnel at Ardwick to carry on to Manchester Airport. The Mayfield side isn't big enough for a station with multiple 400m long platforms, plus throat, etc.

 

[Ianno87]

There is a really simple solution to that. Cancel the development plans. Land adjacent to nationally significant infrastructure should be safeguarded against un-nessesary development. If only we has previously safeguarded parts of our national infrastructure instead of selling them off, we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

Wrong. A railway is not a toy trainset. Investment in it is to stimulate development and economic activity - most logically the land next to railway stations is prime for this.

 

[notlob.divad]

going off topic, but how does that work, seems an illogical place to put it: wrong side of the station and no westward facing access

It is the most stupid place and orientation for Manchesters HS2 terminal, as it just creates more of what Manchester alredy has an excess of. South-East facing, terminal platforms. But we are well off the 15-16 topic now.

 

[notlob.divad]

Wrong. A railway is not a toy trainset. Investment in it is to stimulate development and economic activity - most logically the land next to railway stations is prime for this.

Funny how other countries manage to safeguard land years in advance for future infrastructure expansion. I guess it is just the UK being unique/special/exceptional/backward* that means they cannot do the same.

*delete acording to your own viewpoint

 

[Mordac]

Funny how other countries manage to safeguard land years in advance for future infrastructure expansion. I guess it is just the UK being unique/special/exceptional/backward* that means they cannot do the same.

*delete acording to your own viewpoint

I'm not claiming there is not a failure of policy here, because there clearly is, but one reason why the political pressure to do so in the UK is stronger than elsewhere is that the UK has a greater population density than most other countries in Europe (bad the Netherlands).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not claiming there is not a failure of policy here, because there clearly is, but one reason why the political pressure to do so in the UK is stronger than elsewhere is that the UK has a greater population density than most other countries in Europe (bad the Netherlands).

It might also be that because we built railways much earlier, our stations are typically much more in the town/city centre itself where land is at a premium rather than on the edge of it (there are exceptions, most notably near enough everywhere on the MML and very old cities like Chester but it is the general situation). It's also harder to acquire land with residential buildings on in our ownership culture than their renting culture.

 

[Greybeard33]

16 minutes is plenty, given that in extremis it can be turned in two or three minutes. If anything, unpicking its crossing moves at Piccadilly will substantially improve its typical eastbound performance.

No way would Network Rail allow TPE to chop 12 minutes (44%) off the turnaround time of the South TPE services, with potential impacts on the WCML, MML and ECML punctuality performance. As @Killingworth frequently reports, performance on the Hope Valley line is already amongst the worst in the country. The crossing moves between Piccadilly and Stockport would be exactly the same as now, because Piccadilly P9/10 are the only platforms available for these services to use.

Since May 2018 TPE has been forced to extend turnaround times and add diagrams to its North services to increase recovery time. The Newcastle and Redcar services now have 40 minute turnarounds at the Airport.

 

[notlob.divad]

It might also be that because we built railways much earlier, our stations are typically much more in the town/city centre itself where land is at a premium rather than on the edge of it (there are exceptions, most notably near enough everywhere on the MML and very old cities like Chester but it is the general situation). It's also harder to acquire land with residential buildings on in our ownership culture than their renting culture.

Yet, Piccadilly is the epitomy of a station on the edge of the city centre. For years it has stood in an abandoned waste ground surrounded by low rise post-industrial grot and abandoned rail infrastructure.

 

[krus_aragon]

I was not aware that Boris had made a pledge that would have allowed him to be baked....

Oh, come now, he's spend most of the past month bragging about his "oven-ready" plans...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yet, Piccadilly is the epitomy of a station on the edge of the city centre. For years it has stood in an abandoned waste ground surrounded by low rise post-industrial grot and abandoned rail infrastructure.

Sounds a perfect description of some northern industrial landscape that L.S.Lowry would paint.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a really simple solution to that. Cancel the development plans. Land adjacent to nationally significant infrastructure should be safeguarded against un-nessesary development. If only we has previously safeguarded parts of our national infrastructure instead of selling them off, we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that the 2018 Manchester Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework that covers an area of 62 acres was approved by Manchester City Council, following public consultation? Have you heard of any recent intention to cancel this project?

 

[Ianno87]

No way would Network Rail allow TPE to chop 12 minutes (44%) off the turnaround time of the South TPE services, with potential impacts on the WCML, MML and ECML punctuality performance.

NR may well do, given that the performance benefit it would give to the Castlefield corridor and Piccadilly approaches would potentially be very significant.

(12 minutes off the tirnround time, but 20 minutes or so (11%) off its end to end journey time and probably a few % reduction in conflicting movements. Anything can be made to sound impressive by making it into a percentage)

 

[Roose]

It is the most stupid place and orientation for Manchesters HS2 terminal, as it just creates more of what Manchester alredy has an excess of. South-East facing, terminal platforms.

Perhaps not - depends upon whether the station incorporates through NPR platforms in a basement, as one proposal suggested, with a tunnelled solution towards the route east.

 

[modernrail]

It's a mess, and that is evident by the way people are going at each other on here. The deliverable solutions are not at all obvious.

Essentially you have lots more people than when there were more lines on a lot less lines going into a lot less west facing terminal capacity, a smaller Victoria and a lot more non-grade seperated through journeys to an airport that needs to be a better connected regional hub.

Personally, until a NPR tunnel is built, I think they should have aimed for a 15 minute TPE frequency Trans-pennine with longer trains (probably 6/7 coaches) with 2 going to the airport, 2 to Liverpool, a strict limit on trains through the Castefield corridor and everything else terminates somewhere else, 15/16 built, a much improved Salford Cresent and much improved passenger interchange facilities elsewhere. I accept that would mean some bitter pills for some to swallow. Instead they appear to have gone for wishful thinking in the extreme. No matter what you do, without a massively expensive (but easily justified on a national outlook) east west tunnel (which itself would be a complicated affair) there is only so much the existing infrastructure can do.

The chord appears to be the biggest infrastructure flop in living memory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, until a NPR tunnel is built, I think they should have aimed for a 15 minute TPE frequency Trans-pennine with longer trains (probably 6/7 coaches) with 2 going to the airport, 2 to Liverpool, a strict limit on trains through the Castefield corridor and everything else terminates somewhere else

I agree. Probably longer than that in fact.

The chord appears to be the biggest infrastructure flop in living memory.

Indeed. I'm not wholly opposed to it - it does have benefits - but the rest of the Castlefield work should have been done first, and had money run short (as it has) it's the Chord that should have been canned, not 15/16.

But the Airport tail continues to wag the entire North West dog.

Though I could be tempted to suggest that the Ardwick curve would have been better value, as then a very large number of North West services could have been sent via Vic and then into the Picc trainshed, significantly reducing the load on Castlefield. But, er, everywhere has to have a direct service to the Airport, and that wouldn't do that.

 

[Wtloild]

Which train would an air passenger choose, direct or with the uncertainty of a change?

I do have a direct service from my station (Chorley), but it's far from reliable, suffering for cancellations (much of it caused by airport & Castlefield overcapacity), terminations & short-forming.
Also, non of the stock used has anything like the luggage space required for an airport service - there are frequent altercations between airport travellers & commuters over suitcases blocking doors/corridors/seats - all against a backdrop of regular sardine-can overcrowding.

An interchange between incoming regional services & an airport shuttle could work if it was designed right.
Currently 13/14 are a thoroughly unpleasant interchange - windswept (many people coming from airports aren't dressed for the weather), overcrowded & inaccessible.
Other potential interchanges are no better - my mother travelling from Clitheroe has a choice of changing at Salford Cresc (overcrowded, windswept) or Bolton (long distance between platforms).
Victoria is also poor for Yorks/NE passengers (don't get me started about the non-functioning lifts).
An interchange to a fast dedicated shuttle at Mayfield could work if well designed - enclosed, travelators, trolleys available, seating, etc. - e.g. RER from Paris CDG.

 

[Altfish]

Considering the cost of building two new platforms I do not see how this will increase capacity any more than slightly. What about the flat junctions services using the new platforms would navigate? Where is the long term planning? What is the endgame that these new platforms will deliver?

Trains queue to get into platforms 13/14; the ability to be able to have two trains in at once and be loading / unloading passengers would make a huge difference. As someone who uses the platforms most days it is chaos at the moment and the delays whilst disabled passengers/food trolleys are carefully loaded needs to be addressed.