Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Jozhua]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf


Doesn't say what the 9 location schemes required to support Castlefield are and the original report (and options for which 2tph to cut) were seen and discussed behind closed doors. But from elsewhere in the report the schemes seem to have included Salford Crescent (presumably more platforms, junction remodelling), grade separation of Ordsall Lane, a Manchester Victoria Eastern turnback, lengthening of Manchester Airport platforms (possibly involving alteration to the A555 to make room)

Thanks for sending this report to us, the whole thing really does say exactly what we've all been saying!

From the report:

The strategic choices are:
➢ investment in the infrastructure;
➢ some reduction to the train service; or
➢ accept the very poor reliability that is a consequence of using the existing infrastructure so intensively.

Really, it's the iron triangle of project management. We have cost, speed/frequency and quality! Pick two.

 

[AndrewE]

Really, it's the iron triangle of project management. We have cost, speed/frequency and quality! Pick two.

which reminds me of the joke/truism that I have to admit I read in the Readers' Digest:
On the wall of a garage on the middle of no-where: "Our work has 3 characteristics... Quick, Good and Cheap. Unfortunately you can only ever have 2 of them on any one job!"

 

[Andyh82]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf





Doesn't say what the 9 location schemes required to support Castlefield are and the original report (and options for which 2tph to cut) were seen and discussed behind closed doors. But from elsewhere in the report the schemes seem to have included Salford Crescent (presumably more platforms, junction remodelling), grade separation of Ordsall Lane, a Manchester Victoria Eastern turnback, lengthening of Manchester Airport platforms (possibly involving alteration to the A555 to make room)

At Manchester Airport I wonder if it might be possible to convert the Metrolink platforms to heavy rail?

With the Metrolink platforms moving further down the existing track to before it runs parallel to the railway (linked to by travelators) or altering the approach route and having the Metrolink stop elsewhere.

As Metrolink works seem to go much faster than those on the railways, it might be a way to get rail investment by actually having Metrolink investment.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Metrolink platform is there because the tunnel under the airport station building put in when the building was constructed so that the line can continue on is behind that brick wall where the track ends.

 

[hwl]

NR's thinking:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

 

[Greybeard33]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf

Doesn't say what the 9 location schemes required to support Castlefield are and the original report (and options for which 2tph to cut) were seen and discussed behind closed doors. But from elsewhere in the report the schemes seem to have included Salford Crescent (presumably more platforms, junction remodelling), grade separation of Ordsall Lane, a Manchester Victoria Eastern turnback, lengthening of Manchester Airport platforms (possibly involving alteration to the A555 to make room)

Thanks to @WatcherZero for drawing attention to this TfN report. Perhaps also worth quoting in detail the recommendations for infrastructure enhancements:

5.1 Infrastructure enhancements
It is recommended that the Transport for the North’s Board should state clearly that:
• resolution to the current problems of congested infrastructure should be through provision of adequate infrastructure rather than long-term reductions in services or unreliable operation: and
• any reductions in service that might be necessary in the short-term should be recognised as temporary palliative measures until the infrastructure has been enhanced.

5.2 It is recommended that the Transport for the North Board should:

1. Advise the Secretary of State to approve the next stage (which is understood to be detailed design) of the ‘Package C’ works by:
a. Approving the TWAO now;
b. start GRIP 4 (detailed design) without further delay; and
c. Identify Do Minimum costs for Oxford Road & Piccadilly (for longer trains & increasing passenger flow);

2. Welcome and Strongly support the DfT/NWR ‘Other options’, in particular:
a. The Manchester Victoria eastern turnback which should be approved immediately;
b. Manchester Airport, which should be progressed urgently, including synergies with Airport road works planned for 2020-2021;
c. early development of 3 quick-wins;
d. Ordsall Lane grade-separation; and
e. Salford Crescent
and request consideration of similar options south of Piccadilly, including:
• Assess Piccadilly – Slade Lane/Stockport urgently for the benefits of and optimum location for grade-separation; and
• assess the value of 6-tracks Longsight – Slade Lane;

3. Request a piece of work to assess freight options avoiding Castlefield; and

4. Seek designation of Stockport & Manchester Airport as ‘Congested Infrastructure’.

 

[WatcherZero]

NR's thinking:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

Thanks for that, been looking for a while. NR makes it impossible to find these kind of one off reports and GRIP studies on their website.

Edit: Mmm parts are familiar but it has more diagrams and more positive language, I wonder if ive already seen an earlier version.

 

[Camden]

So, along with having engineered a situation where the country has to gift Manchester 2 more major overhauls of stations in order to mitigate a disaster made of their own lobbying, they are also trying to shoehorn into that "ask" a whole load of other stuff too.

And if they don't get their way, they'll see to it it's people in other cities that suffer.

 

[Camden]

And from the report

DfT has engaged Richard George to advise on what reductions and/or changes to train services through the Castlefield corridor might be necessary/least-bad as palliative measures for the interim period from December 2020 until any infrastructure enhancements are delivered
Richard George made a presentation to Transport for the North’s Rail North Committee on 5 November 2019 about his service proposals. Those proposals were then considered by a Transport for the North’s
Member/Officer Working Group, and Transport for the North’s Rail North Committee will be considering what Transport for the North’s view should be expressed to the Rail North Partnership Board to inform the final decision.

Absolutely disgusting that this is being discussed like this, in secret (public excluded from the discussion) with these skewed, undemocratic and unaccountable bodies giving a rubber stamp to the imposition of further degraded services delivered to those who simply lack the ear of government.

 

[Geeves]

The extra platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Rd rebuild were supposed to be part and parcel of the chord scheme and that wasn't ever a big secret. No one is being gifted anything.

 

[Jozhua]

So, along with having engineered a situation where the country has to gift Manchester 2 more major overhauls of stations in order to mitigate a disaster made of their own lobbying, they are also trying to shoehorn into that "ask" a whole load of other stuff too.

And if they don't get their way, they'll see to it it's people in other cities that suffer.

No, it was part of a two part project that was cancelled. The second part that was cancelled being the important one.

Currently other cities ARE suffering, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, etc.

It shouldn't be an either or, other Midlands and Northern towns/cities should be getting significantly more investment than at current, the whole network needs modernisation.

I've seen how much good station remodellings like those at Derby can be, trains approach so much faster and are delayed considerably less. It really helps take pressure off the whole network, aids recovery times and ensure services arrive at other congested areas on time.

The extra platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Rd rebuild were supposed to be part and parcel of the chord scheme and that wasn't ever a big secret. No one is being gifted anything.

Yes

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Manchester suffers from the past thinking of having Piccadilly (aka London Road) as being a terminal station from which LNWR and GCR services to London and all points south were the main focus and Victoria being a LYR hub station with six through platform lines, ten east facing bay platforms plus avoiding lines between platforms 11 and 12 (with Exchange station also being used for service patterns and Exchange also had west-facing bay platforms).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester suffers from the past thinking of having Piccadilly (aka London Road) as being a terminal station from which LNWR and GCR services to London and all points south were the main focus and Victoria being a LYR hub station with six through platform lines, ten east facing bay platforms plus avoiding lines between platforms 11 and 12 (with Exchange station also being used for service patterns and Exchange also had west-facing bay platforms).

I'd say it still suffers from the loss of Central which provided the much-needed west-facing terminal capacity.

 

[Meerkat]

What are the likely options for Ordsall Lane grade separation?
After looking at the map and satellite view even my pretty ambitious crayons couldn’t see any ways of doing it that weren’t massively disruptive and expensive.

 

[BenW390Fan]

What are the likely options for Ordsall Lane grade separation?
After looking at the map and satellite view even my pretty ambitious crayons couldn’t see any ways of doing it that weren’t massively disruptive and expensive.

Unfortunately it's inevitable that buildings will have to be moved and yes it may be expensive but it'd be worth it in the long run.

 

[Meerkat]

Unfortunately it's inevitable that buildings will have to be moved and yes it may be expensive but it'd be worth it in the long run.

But any suggestions to what line will go over/under which?

 

[notlob.divad]

No, it was part of a two part project that was cancelled. The second part that was cancelled being the important one.

That maybe true, but both reports recently linked in this thread make it clear that even that bigger more importatnt project will not be sufficient, and there are many more issues with the multitude of flat crossings on the banks of the River Irwell.

Currently other cities ARE suffering, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, etc.

It shouldn't be an either or, other Midlands and Northern towns/cities should be getting significantly more investment than at current, the whole network needs modernisation.

Absolutely they are and absolutely they should, but past experience shows us that this is not how the government's of the UK respond in such situations, where spending in Manchester (even bad spending) is the default response to satisfy any requirements for spending in the North.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am currently sat on an 802 travelling from Piccadilly over to Leeds. It arrived on time. I find it a far more comfortable experience than a 185. So overall, one happy commuter.

But...

The journey from Piccadilly to Oxford Road to Victoria was at a snales pace and it is a joke that we have three station stops in Manchester on what is meant to be a service providing intercity standards to passengers. P15 and 16 is badly needed and I hope something is done soon, but clearly it is not the answer. The more I travel this route, the more I am convinced we need either a tunnel under Manchester or reversing out of Piccadilly. Having passengers boarding a train from one city spread out over three stations is not optimal.

The only positive though is the view of Manchester as you slowly float by. The city is looking good right now.

 

[Meerkat]

Slade Lane and onto Piccadilly....
To my inexpert eye it seems unnecessarily complicated, almost as though the intention was to create as many conflicts as possible.
Wouldn’t it be easier for the Stockport lines to merge from 4 into the two east side tracks and the airport line to stay on the two westside tracks all the way into Piccadilly. Almost everything from the airport goes through 13/14 and almost everything from Stockport goes into the terminal platforms. It’s only a couple of miles with no stations so speed differentials can’t require overtaking??
What am I missing?

 

[AndrewE]

Slade Lane and onto Piccadilly....
To my inexpert eye it seems unnecessarily complicated, almost as though the intention was to create as many conflicts as possible.
Wouldn’t it be easier for the Stockport lines to merge from 4 into the two east side tracks and the airport line to stay on the two westside tracks all the way into Piccadilly. Almost everything from the airport goes through 13/14 and almost everything from Stockport goes into the terminal platforms. It’s only a couple of miles with no stations so speed differentials can’t require overtaking??
What am I missing?

They (Slade Lane junction anyway) have been remodelled several times over the last century. I think that the service pattern changes and the layout is no longer optimal... just like now, when the number of airport trains has shot up.
There are lots of places where our infrastructure upgrades are so slow that the track is always out of step with traffic needs. Stalybridge west end for example.

 

[notlob.divad]

Slade Lane and onto Piccadilly....
To my inexpert eye it seems unnecessarily complicated, almost as though the intention was to create as many conflicts as possible.
Wouldn’t it be easier for the Stockport lines to merge from 4 into the two east side tracks and the airport line to stay on the two westside tracks all the way into Piccadilly. Almost everything from the airport goes through 13/14 and almost everything from Stockport goes into the terminal platforms. It’s only a couple of miles with no stations so speed differentials can’t require overtaking??
What am I missing?

Stockport <-> Liverpool long distance trains.
The Greater Manchester City reasons desire for direct Cross Manchester connectivity. ie Bolton <-> Stockport.
Access to and from Longsight depots.

 

[Senex]

I am currently sat on an 802 travelling from Piccadilly over to Leeds. It arrived on time. I find it a far more comfortable experience than a 185. So overall, one happy commuter.

But...

The journey from Piccadilly to Oxford Road to Victoria was at a snales pace and it is a joke that we have three station stops in Manchester on what is meant to be a service providing intercity standards to passengers. P15 and 16 is badly needed and I hope something is done soon, but clearly it is not the answer. The more I travel this route, the more I am convinced we need either a tunnel under Manchester or reversing out of Piccadilly. Having passengers boarding a train from one city spread out over three stations is not optimal.

The only positive though is the view of Manchester as you slowly float by. The city is looking good right now.

TPE wants to pretend to be an inter-city operation, but in reality it's a rather pretentious and not very glorified inter-regional operation.

You do indeed float very slowly by the buildings of Manchester and it's surprising that when a new line was being built they didn't go for something a little better. But then remember how tediously slow the Thameslink run through Central London is. That's the way we do things in Britain.

 

[Camden]

Stockport <-> Liverpool long distance trains.

Train, singular. And be prepared to lose that in December 2020. The termination of the East Midlands service in Manchester is obviously a done deal, judging by the above.

DfT has engaged Richard George to advise on what reductions and/or changes to train services through the Castlefield corridor might be necessary/least-bad as palliative measures for the interim period from December 2020 until any infrastructure enhancements are delivered
Richard George made a presentation to Transport for the North’s Rail North Committee on 5 November 2019 about his service proposals

FOI TfN for that man's presentation from 5th November. I bet they'll refuse to provide it.

Liverpool needs one of its own around these tables, speaking up forcefully for its requirements.

 

[Greybeard33]

Thanks for that, been looking for a while. NR makes it impossible to find these kind of one off reports and GRIP studies on their website.

Edit: Mmm parts are familiar but it has more diagrams and more positive language, I wonder if ive already seen an earlier version.

That NR report is the same version (v0.7) that was released last September and discussed on this forum three months ago:

Network Rail have issued a report (first of two reports) into the congestion on the Castlefield Corridor and it basically says that the services as promised in the Northern and TPE franchises are impossible to run reliably.
Issues it identifies (aside from Piccadilly) are:

• Sectional Running times - are currently too short. Trains cannot run are quickly as timetabled - dwell times - defensive driving policy
• Oxford Road - If trains are longer than 4x20m ie 2x150 or 1x319 only two of four platforms can be used.
• Salford Crescent/Salford Central/Victoria - lack of lines/crossovers to allow parallel moves across junctions. Trains coming of Ordsall Chord can 'lock' up Ordsall Lane/Windors Bridge Jncs.
• Manchester Airport - Currently can serve more than one train (4x150) on same platform if train length increase not enough platforms

Aside from various infrastructure improvements (Rebuild Oxford road to 4 platforms with centre turnback, rebuild Salford Cresent to 4 platforms with four tracks to Victoria, extra crosovers east of Vic) the only other suggestions are to reduce Castlefield services by running Chat Moss eg TFW into Vic and Atherton/Bolton Line sevices through Vic to Rochdale/Caldervale.

I just seems to show that NR/DFT have completely botched the Northern Rail Hub/Northern/TPE franchise improvements.

The report mentioned by tomuk:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

The NR report did not even mention P15/16 in its discussion of possible solutions to the infrastructure constraints - perhaps the project was considered politically off limits at that time?

 

[Ianno87]

You do indeed float very slowly by the buildings of Manchester and it's surprising that when a new line was being built they didn't go for something a little better. But then remember how tediously slow the Thameslink run through Central London is. That's the way we do things in Britain.

25mph line speed through the Thameslink core gives you 24 trains per hour. Higher speed means few trains per hour.

Besides, since May 2018 the running time through the core has become much slicker anyway, with much of the 'padding' now taken out. Should get even better soon once the ATO comes into regular use.

 

[Esker-pades]

Train, singular. And be prepared to lose that in December 2020. The termination of the East Midlands service in Manchester is obviously a done deal, judging by the above.

But due to be replaced by a different Nottingham to Liverpool service.

 

[Purple Orange]

TPE wants to pretend to be an inter-city operation, but in reality it's a rather pretentious and not very glorified inter-regional operation.

You do indeed float very slowly by the buildings of Manchester and it's surprising that when a new line was being built they didn't go for something a little better. But then remember how tediously slow the Thameslink run through Central London is. That's the way we do things in Britain.

As someone who is a general member of the public when it comes to rail, the distinction of regional rail and intercity that some people make on this forum doesn't exist in the real world it seems.

Intercity is a train like a TPE 802, XC, LNER etc that travels through multiple cities over a long distance and a couple of hours journey.

Regional or Local as a concept feels much more commuter, like the 185 units. Nobody will board a TPE from Manchester to Glasgow or Newcastle and think they are not on an intercity train.

 

[Greybeard33]

Liverpool needs one of its own around these tables, speaking up forcefully for its requirements.

TfN's Rail North Committee is meeting today, 08 January, to discuss the report linked in post #776. From the Agenda, the committee chair is Cllr Liam Robinson, Liverpool City Region. https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/0.0-RNC-080120-Agenda-8-January-2020-.pdf. Also Mayor Steve Rotheram is on the TfN Board, which must endorse the committee's recommendations before they are sent to the DfT.

Do these elected representatives not count as "one of Liverpool's own?"

 

[Greybeard33]

Slade Lane and onto Piccadilly....
To my inexpert eye it seems unnecessarily complicated, almost as though the intention was to create as many conflicts as possible.
Wouldn’t it be easier for the Stockport lines to merge from 4 into the two east side tracks and the airport line to stay on the two westside tracks all the way into Piccadilly. Almost everything from the airport goes through 13/14 and almost everything from Stockport goes into the terminal platforms. It’s only a couple of miles with no stations so speed differentials can’t require overtaking??
What am I missing?

As I recently explained on the Castlefield corridor thread:

There are only 4 running lines between Piccadilly and Slade Lane and the 15tph to Stockport cannot all fit on the Fast lines - some must share the Slows with the Airport line trains. At Slade Lane the Stockport lines change from paired by use to paired by direction, so conflicts are inevitable as services in opposite directions cross each others' paths.

 

[Domeyhead]

Result of this petition = Nothing. I am sorry to be cynical but this petition could have 6 million signatures and it will have absolutely no impact on the government or their funding of this project.

Totally agree, and Rich beat me to it. The only way this will get anywhere in Parliament is for it to go via an MP or possibly the Mayor of Manchester. Even as a Private Members Bill it would fail. It has to go through all the due process of parliamentary machinery and the Secretary of State for Transport (ie his department) needs to be convinced for it to do so, so if the 673 signatories all wrote to their own MPs arguing the case and their MPs then badgered the SoS that would have far more impact. Petitions are a waste of time in any walk of life.