Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[The Planner]

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.

Didn't stop us accepting 5 minute turnarounds at Rugeley for a train that came from Euston via Northampton and the West Mids. You would be surprised at what gets allowed when certain people suggest it is to be done.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn't stop us accepting 5 minute turnarounds at Rugeley for a train that came from Euston via Northampton and the West Mids. You would be surprised at what gets allowed when certain people suggest it is to be done.....

I hadn't noticed that. Grossly incompetent on the part of both those who suggested it would work (given the endemic sloppy late running of up to 5-6 minutes on many south WCML services) and those who required you to do it.

 

[Greybeard33]

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....

The current timetable provides for a clockface 15 minute TPE frequency between Leeds and Victoria, of which 2 go to the Airport, via Castlefield, and 2 to Liverpool. TPE plans to operate all these with 5-car trains by next spring. Is your proposal to can the semi-fast Hull - Piccadilly service (soon to become 6-car) and the Huddersfield - Piccadilly stopper (3-car)? That would reduce transpennine capacity by 9 carriages/hr, while extending all the fast trains to 6/7-car (which could not be done easily or quickly) would only add 4-8 carriages/hour. And how would you then propose to serve Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite?

 

[modernrail]

The current timetable provides for a clockface 15 minute TPE frequency between Leeds and Victoria, of which 2 go to the Airport, via Castlefield, and 2 to Liverpool. TPE plans to operate all these with 5-car trains by next spring. Is your proposal to can the semi-fast Hull - Piccadilly service (soon to become 6-car) and the Huddersfield - Piccadilly stopper (3-car)? That would reduce transpennine capacity by 9 carriages/hr, while extending all the fast trains to 6/7-car (which could not be done easily or quickly) would only add 4-8 carriages/hour. And how would you then propose to serve Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite?

Well I must admit to having become a little confused as to the new timetable and where the timetable is meant to be ending up since the changes having out of the area (although I do pass through Manchester very frequently for work and so am experiencing the meltdown regularly).

It would indeed appear my proposal does not take us any further forward if it does not take anything off the corridor. It sounds like 2 of the 6 TP services are really northern services in disguise. As a former Huddersfield man if anything I would like to see a solid 20 minute stopper from Leeds to Manchester Picc (via guide bridge) and have sympathy with Hull types that their service should be a full express into a Manchester station. So no solutions there!

I am about to depart Nottingham for Liverpool on another of our ridculously slow northern intercity routes. When you take the Midlands and M62 belt cities together it is possible to argue the right alignment for NPR is from a T south of Leeds/north of Sheffield on HS2 (even if that is the only bit of HS2 ever built), across to Manchester Airport and then up through an underground station in Manchester across to Liverpool. That is the route that would allow for the most truly useful and plentiful inter-city expresses releasing space on the existing infrastructure to concentrate on a mix of semi-fast and stopping commuter services. I am acutely aware this does not answer the Bradford question but it might be that total connectivity for Bradford is better delivered through NPR starting in Bradford, then into Leeds. Good connections to Sheffield, Midlands cities and Manchester Airport would be as valuable to Bradford as being able to get to Manchester a bit quicker.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current timetable provides for a clockface 15 minute TPE frequency between Leeds and Victoria, of which 2 go to the Airport, via Castlefield, and 2 to Liverpool. TPE plans to operate all these with 5-car trains by next spring. Is your proposal to can the semi-fast Hull - Piccadilly service (soon to become 6-car) and the Huddersfield - Piccadilly stopper (3-car)? That would reduce transpennine capacity by 9 carriages/hr, while extending all the fast trains to 6/7-car (which could not be done easily or quickly) would only add 4-8 carriages/hour. And how would you then propose to serve Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite?

The 'Uddersfield service is really a Northern in TPE's clothing. The other one, yes, I'd bin it off in favour of a follow on order to up the length of the new sets to 7 car with SDO.

 

[railfan100]

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.

Not a good enough plan to build a huge expensive project for the shorter term. How can building these platforms help the capacity of the city for the next 20 years, a longer term plan is needed e.g. flyover construction or look to where we started e.g. Manchester Victoria that is 40% of the size it was in 1992.

 

[Altfish]

Not a good enough plan to build a huge expensive project for the shorter term. How can building these platforms help the capacity of the city for the next 20 years, a longer term plan is needed e.g. flyover construction or look to where we started e.g. Manchester Victoria that is 40% of the size it was in 1992.

HS2/3 is the long term answer.
Since to expand Victoria you have to relocate the Manchester Arena; the Piccadilly 15/16 scheme will be cheaper and more useful.

 

[AndrewE]

Not a good enough plan to build a huge expensive project for the shorter term. How can building these platforms help the capacity of the city for the next 20 years, a longer term plan is needed e.g. flyover construction or look to where we started e.g. Manchester Victoria that is 40% of the size it was in 1992.

Platforms 15/16 are for NOW - or should have been. Loading trains at alternate sides of an island platform allows you to make most use of the current single track approach.
The longer term plan is NPR / HS2 which hopefully will be another / sister/twin station with at least 4 through platforms taking London /Brum / Liverpool trains through to Leeds and beyond - and v.v. of course

 

[railfan100]

HS2/3 is the long term answer.
Since to expand Victoria you have to relocate the Manchester Arena; the Piccadilly 15/16 scheme will be cheaper and more useful.

Maybe the High Speed lines will be the longer term answer but building new platforms at London Road will just show the next bottle neck which is the flat junctions, selling the land at Victoria on the cheap for the MEN is really biting Manchester in the backside and the wider North of the country. That capacity at Victoria today would be so valuable how little the country seems to learn. The 60% lost space at Victoria can only really be replicated by 4 tracks through the centre of the city e.g. all the way from Picc to past Deansgate and who is going to fund that with flyovers needed for the flat junctions. Getting rid of Victoria capacity was strategic failure and made no sense in 1992 and makes no sense today.

 

[railfan100]

Platforms 15/16 are for NOW - or should have been. Loading trains at alternate sides of an island platform allows you to make most use of the current single track approach.
The longer term plan is NPR / HS2 which hopefully will be another / sister/twin station with at least 4 through platforms taking London /Brum / Liverpool trains through to Leeds and beyond - and v.v. of course

How will HS2, HS3 or even HS4 or whatever hot air the Dft want to tout going to help with the cross city local commuting services? What about the lack of Manchester bound services that cannot terminate from the West? At least the 6 through platforms at Victoria provided good capacity for terminating services that would quickly return on their original path.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Maybe the High Speed lines will be the longer term answer but building new platforms at London Road will just show the next bottle neck which is the flat junctions, selling the land at Victoria on the cheap for the MEN is really biting Manchester in the backside and the wider North of the country. That capacity at Victoria today would be so valuable how little the country seems to learn. The 60% lost space at Victoria can only really be replicated by 4 tracks through the centre of the city e.g. all the way from Picc to past Deansgate and who is going to fund that with flyovers needed for the flat junctions. Getting rid of Victoria capacity was strategic failure and made no sense in 1992 and makes no sense today.

So very true but sadly we are where we are. Sadly the solution(s) will not be cheap I fear.

 

[Purple Orange]

Platforms 15/16 are for NOW - or should have been. Loading trains at alternate sides of an island platform allows you to make most use of the current single track approach.
The longer term plan is NPR / HS2 which hopefully will be another / sister/twin station with at least 4 through platforms taking London /Brum / Liverpool trains through to Leeds and beyond - and v.v. of course

Is the plan not for 4 bays on the surface and 4 underground through platforms? I’m sure there are diagrams floating somewhere that had that plan, with metro link platforms sandwiched in between where the undercroft is.

This is the article:

”Manchester Piccadilly HS2 upgrade plan revealed”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-43430263

 

[railfan100]

Is the plan not for 4 bays on the surface and 4 underground through platforms? I’m sure there are diagrams floating somewhere that had that plan, with metro link platforms sandwiched in between where the undercroft is.

There is? Send me the potential timetable if you have it will make a note to travel on these services that will need several billions of pounds worth of infrastructure. Maybe Northern with the support of the DfT can operate two coach services on this new 'state of the art' cross city rail infrastructure that will cost an eye watering sum?

 

[AndrewE]

There is? Send me the potential timetable if you have it will make a note to travel on these services that will need several billions of pounds worth of infrastructure.

How much of this thread have you read? At 37 posts and with a clearly minimal understanding of the issues, plus being in London I imagine you might get to see it. Us retired oldies who have seen a once-reasonable 4-coach train commuter service (with some long-distance trains thrown in) degenerate into the shambles we have now may not live to see it!

Maybe Northern with the support of the DfT can operate two coach services on this new 'state of the art' cross city rail infrastructure that will cost an eye watering sum?

It's not about "Northern." Can't you see that the current services suffer from strangulation (regardless of who or what is running them) but in the longer term taking inter-regional trains out of the current infrastructure will give it a better chance of providing what is needed?
And of course several billions of pounds worth of infrastructure is needed: we are just starting to catch up with what has been spent elsewhere over the last 50 years or so.
I am hoping that the stations are not yet fixed, so that we can have an integrated solution better suited to all the transport needs rather than building another HS1 - an airline on wheels - not integrated into the existing network.
Maybe [London and] Liverpool - Airport - Piccadilly (or equivalent) - Oldham(?) Huddersfield (?) Leeds - York etc.
p.s. I have decided you are a troll who can't accept that the current structure is mad (probably because of some political loyalty) or that the provinces desperately need investment, so I shall ignore your ignorant crap in future.

 

[Purple Orange]

I didn’t think anyone said it would be cheap, or the most optimal way to getting NPR and HS2 services established.

 

[railfan100]

It's not about "Northern." Can't you see that the current services suffer from strangulation (regardless of who or what is running them) but in the longer term taking inter-regional trains out of the current infrastructure will give it a better chance of providing what is needed?
And of course several billions of pounds worth of infrastructure is needed
.

I was trying to stop the powers that be force BR's hand for Victoria in the early 90's (the idea actually started in 1988 but did not take place until late 1992 to be evident in the public eye). Getting rid of the MEN has to be better than spending billions on infrastructure that is only needed due to strategic failure around losing 60% of Manchester Victoria?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us look at how matters exist in reality in 2020. Electrification has reached the through running lines at Manchester Victoria from the west but there matters end at what should be an electrified Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds cross Pennine rail route.

 

[HSTEd]

I was trying to stop the powers that be force BR's hand for Victoria in the early 90's (the idea actually started in 1988 but did not take place until late 1992 to be evident in the public eye). Getting rid of the MEN has to be better than spending billions on infrastructure that is only needed due to strategic failure around losing 60% of Manchester Victoria?

How much do you think the MEN site is worth?
And Victoria is not the best place for traffic to go.

As much as people want to restore this idea of multiple independent stations in Manchester, all resources should be focussed on concentrating all services into the Castlefield Corridor.

It is far better than Victoria in terms of engagement with other public transport, especially Oxford Road, and ideally I want passengers to be able to change from every train service to any other train service in one jump.

Make the Clapham Junction of the North West essentially.
I would take it as far as preferring HS2 Classic Compatible services to the North West run via Manchester Airport and providing a connection to the Styal Line, so that those trains can all run via Oxford Road.

 

[railfan100]

Let us look at how matters exist in reality in 2020. Electrification has reached the through running lines at Manchester Victoria from the west but there matters end at what should be an electrified Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds cross Pennine rail route.

This is key and considering the position today it is vital, electrification via Manchester Victoria over the Pennines is needed, Victoria in the previous decades was selected over London Road for Pennine traffic as it was quicker point-to-point the route via Guide Bridge is slower, Chat Moss is quicker than via Warrington.

It always made sense core Pennine traffic going via Victoria. This traffic was moved away from Victoria in 1989\90 to minimise the requirement to maintain through platform numbers at Victoria so it could be sold off on the cheap for the MEN. If Victoria had more through platforms and better capacity with the electrification over the hills you have solved much of the Manchester capacity issues, the airport connections could be solved via a 15 or 20 minute service from Victoria-Piccadilly-MIA and therefore stop a service from which every other town in Northern England needs a direct airport service.

 

[railfan100]

How much do you think the MEN site is worth?
And Victoria is not the best place for traffic to go.

As much as people want to restore this idea of multiple independent stations in Manchester, all resources should be focussed on concentrating all services into the Castlefield Corridor.

Look at London, do you want to have a focus on a single station there? Manchester may double in size in the next 50 to 70 years where is your plan? Are we only doing the short term these days? Unless you have a budget of multiple billion Manchester needs more than one key station. Victoria former land is worth a great deal I concur is shows what a strategic failure selling off the land in the early 90's was. Has anything been learned from this lack of planning I doubt it....

 

[Purple Orange]

I was trying to stop the powers that be force BR's hand for Victoria in the early 90's (the idea actually started in 1988 but did not take place until late 1992 to be evident in the public eye). Getting rid of the MEN has to be better than spending billions on infrastructure that is only needed due to strategic failure around losing 60% of Manchester Victoria?

I don’t think that is the answer for 21st century Manchester, let alone the wider north. The only saving grace for Victoria station is that it on an East-West alignment, but that is it. The city is changing at a very fast pace and the main centres of activity in Manchester will be within the established city centre, the university area and Salford Quays. And so if Victoria did not exist, would we want to build a station on that site? Probably not.

But it does exist. However it really is not suited to hosting intercity services. It could (and should) be a very good commuter station as part of a local/regional network. Take away the long distance services, feeding it all in to Piccadilly, and hey presto, we have Picc-Vic but on a viaduct, with 4 commuter radial lines to the west: One to Bolton, Preston & Blackpool; two to Liverpool; and one to Wigan. 4 radial commuter lanes to the south: the airport; Crewe; Stoke and Buxton. 3 to the east: Leeds, Bradford & Rochdale; Hadfield & Glossop; and New Mills.

Of course the questions still would exist on what to do with the North and South trans pennine routes to enable better local commuter services on those lines, and also the Welsh services. Perhaps the north wales services need the be incorporated in to a commuter service to.

 

[HSTEd]

Look at London, do you want to have a focus on a single station there?

If it was possible to engineer that, then yes, yes I would.

But that would cost a stupendous amount of money starting from where we are now.

Manchester may double in size in the next 50 to 70 years where is your plan?

Quite simple, buy up adjacent buildings to the Castlefield Corridor, there aren't many and most are relatively low value or at least not of major cultural importance.

Throw everything we have into upgrading that corridor to handle as much of the traffic as we can.

Are we only doing the short term these days? Unless you have a budget of multiple billion Manchester needs more than one key station.

Anything we do is going to need a budget of multiple billion.
And it's nto really a single station as such, passengers would be split over three stations - Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly, with residual traffic passing through Victoria on the way to or from the corridor.

Victoria former land is worth a great deal I concur is shows what a strategic failure selling off the land in the early 90's was. Has anything been learned from this lack of planning I doubt it....

What happened in the 90s is irrelevant.
We are where we are, and the bulk of the Victoria site is functionally permanently lost.

 

[Bevan Price]

How much do you think the MEN site is worth?
And Victoria is not the best place for traffic to go.

As much as people want to restore this idea of multiple independent stations in Manchester, all resources should be focussed on concentrating all services into the Castlefield Corridor.

It is far better than Victoria in terms of engagement with other public transport, especially Oxford Road, and ideally I want passengers to be able to change from every train service to any other train service in one jump.

But Victoria is much better for parts of Manchester city centre, including the main shopping areas. Only a relatively small proportion of passengers need to change trains; for the majority, Manchester is their destination. Piccadilly Platforms 13/14 are very inconvenient for much of the city centre, as would be the suggested 15/16. Oxford Road is good for the University areas and some business premises, but even worse than Piccadilly for some shopping areas. Also, building Platforms 15/16 would not reduce the number of trains trying to get through the Castlefield Jn bottleneck.

 

[Purple Orange]

But Victoria is much better for parts of Manchester city centre, including the main shopping areas. Only a relatively small proportion of passengers need to change trains; for the majority, Manchester is their destination. Piccadilly Platforms 13/14 are very inconvenient for much of the city centre, as would be the suggested 15/16. Oxford Road is good for the University areas and some business premises, but even worse than Piccadilly for some shopping areas. Also, building Platforms 15/16 would not reduce the number of trains trying to get through the Castlefield Jn bottleneck.

Therefore Victoria should just be a commuter station for local and regional trains. Not TPE to Leeds and beyond.

 

[mmh]

If it was possible to engineer that, then yes, yes I would.

Indeed, you don't want multiple unconnected terminus especially just for the sake of it. A good parallel is Glasgow - in an ideal world you'd never have two terminuses there and if you were planning the city from scratch you'd never design it that way.

 

[Glenn1969]

What about Bradford- should a way have been found to link the 2 terminuses there especially given that Interchange is no longer a terminus in the main but all trains have to reverse in and out which adds several minutes to the journey to Leeds from Victoria, Rochdale and Calder Valley stations?

As for Manchester there are no inter city services from Victoria so I agree Piccadilly is the main hub and should be expanded as such as soon as possible

 

[mmh]

But Victoria is much better for parts of Manchester city centre, including the main shopping areas. Only a relatively small proportion of passengers need to change trains; for the majority, Manchester is their destination. Piccadilly Platforms 13/14 are very inconvenient for much of the city centre, as would be the suggested 15/16. Oxford Road is good for the University areas and some business premises, but even worse than Piccadilly for some shopping areas. Also, building Platforms 15/16 would not reduce the number of trains trying to get through the Castlefield Jn bottleneck.

I don't think the importance of Manchester as a place to change trains should be underestimated. Most routes from anywhere to the west of Manchester need a change in Manchester to get to anywhere in Yorkshire and the North East. It's largely irrelevant which of Piccadilly or Victoria are more convenient for what, as one or the other will always be better for some people. Although a large chunk of the city centre is slap bang in the middle of them! Being able to change to other routes is important though, and a tram or bus between the two is slow and inconvenient. Through rail services from Victoria to Piccadilly was a great idea, for convenience and splitting passenger load. It needs improving, not scrapping in my opinion.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Harking back to much earlier parts of this thread when west-facing terminal platforms were being discussed, would it be in the realms of possibility for the part of the former viaduct line nearest to Manchester Victoria station that once led to the Red Bank carriage sidings to be used to site two terminal platforms there with connections for passengers to the platform 6 current area.

 

[HSTEd]

But Victoria is much better for parts of Manchester city centre, including the main shopping areas.

Well depending on how you define those areas.
And some fraction of the trains would continue to pass through the station.
So if we properly arrange the platform assignments on the corridor stations we could provide same or cross-platform interchanges between routes to give many routes access to the Victoria station with one change should they want it.

Oxford Road is good for the University areas and some business premises, but even worse than Piccadilly for some shopping areas.

That is a function of the direction the Oxford Road bus routes go in.
In the aftermath of the near inevitable introduction of bus franchising, we can provide free bus transfers to rail passengers to the shopping areas.

Also, building Platforms 15/16 would not reduce the number of trains trying to get through the Castlefield Jn bottleneck.

Not by itself no.
It is a necessary precondition to the modernisation of the Manchester rail system, not the whole project.

That includes other corridor upgrades, reconstructions of Oxford Road and Deansgate stations, junction modifications and related schemes.
A third (or even fourth) track through the corridor would require demolitions but would significantly improve things.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

We are where we are - there is zero point in speculating what 'might have been' had more enlightened decisions been taken in the past. There is zero chance of the Manchester Arena being moved - it is one of the most successful venues in the country, thanks to its city-centre location and excellent rail communications. There is zero chance of the Castlefield Corridor being quadrupled or double-decked, or flying junctions being installed for the Ordsall Curve. The visual intrusion and severe disruption during construction would make it a total non-starter, whilst a lot of recent developments are exceptionally close to the line. Platforms 15/16 offer short to medium term relief, with a significantly improved passenger environment and the ability to recess and regulate services. In the longer term HS2 and NPR will completely change the scene - I favour an underground through station rather than the currently proposed terminus. Tram-trains are another interesting possibility - a new E-W tram line along Whitworth Street could relieve the Castlefield Corridor.