Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[frodshamfella]

The big question is is four-tracking those sections of track sufficient to run the desired service? Or is the best to build 1-2 short higher speed diversions away from the line to allow passing?

And can some services terminate at Manchester Victoria or are another two east-west tracks required through the city centre?

We need to get to the bottom of what is necessary and then get on and build it. But without excessive gold plating (as it won’t pass the treasury) and with all the options properly considered.

Hasn't opening the section allow services that used to terminate at Victoria to now continue via Oxford Road etc , just made it worse.

I was thinking of some of the stuff that serves Southport, but that terminates at Oxford Road now? The Liverpool stoppers are likewise short end door, but start from Oxford Road.

Under the current timetable the severing of the direct trains would add significantly to the Liverpool to Sheffield journey time though. Whether it is possible to recast the CLC so that the connections would be sensible at Piccadilly I am not sure. Making passengers from Liverpool wait almost 30 minutes for the next Sheffield train seems a bit much.

The splitting of these longer distance trains at Manchester could only be a short term fix until the new line is open.

It would be very unpopular to loose long distance services from Liverpool to Sheffield , Norwich etc.

 

[HSTEd]

The big question is is four-tracking those sections of track sufficient to run the desired service? Or is the best to build 1-2 short higher speed diversions away from the line to allow passing?

Any short diversions are going to require tunnels to be viable given the environment.
WIth modern tunnel boring machines the most disruptive part of tunneling is the location of portals.

HS2 shows the pitfalls of projects that have to engage with lots of stakeholders. I don't see much surface construction being a good idea near Manchester

And can some services terminate at Manchester Victoria or are another two east-west tracks required through the city centre

I think Victoria is approaching its capacity limits and can't directly serve the CLC anyway. As someone who has lived in Manchester for 15 years, Victoria is not really an amazingly located station, given Manchester's transport infrastructure.

We need to get to the bottom of what is necessary and then get on and build it. But without excessive gold plating (as it won’t pass the treasury) and with all the options properly considered.

The problem is that half hearted solutions like the Ordsall chord just spend lots and lots of money to little effect and further weaken the railways case with the treasury.
I can't see much alternative to two underground platforms at Manchester Piccadilly and a new East West line. If that is built then there is a lot of scope for savings/improvements elsewhere.

If a high capacity fast line exists between MAnchester and Liverpool it increases the scope for Metrolink conversions of various Manchester suburban lines, which has tended to reduce subsidies in the past. There would probably also be new development opportunities if the surface station at Piccadilly can shrink - you could move the concourse under the main trainshed for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Victoria is approaching its capacity limits and can't directly serve the CLC anyway. As someone who has lived in Manchester for 15 years, Victoria is not really an amazingly located station, given Manchester's transport infrastructure.

The CLC can indeed only go onto Castlefield - it'd require an Ordsall West Chord to get it into Vic.

As for Vic itself it's an absolute dump of a station, and every time I use it I dislike it more (sadly had to on Sunday). The platforms are dingy, dark and full of diesel fumes. The footbridge is inadequate. There's no proper concourse and what concourse type space there is is dominated by a gate line. The toilets are grossly inadequate. It's dirty and unkempt. The retail is insufficient. All in all, it's not fit for purpose for a large city main station. It's Birmingham New St but worse, basically.

That can be fixed, though - purchase and demolish the Arena (which is itself old and increasingly unfit for purpose, and obviously has sad memories associated with it) and rebuild it with 6-8 long through platforms under a new overall roof with two new footbridges. Costly but not as costly as whole new railways!

In location terms it's not as in the sticks as it was - Manchester City Centre has shifted that way a bit. It's not convenient for the universities, but that'd be fixed by a tram down Oxford Road which has been needed since Metrolink first started (and to be fair even without that it's not a massively long walk from St Peter's Square tram stop).

 

[Nottingham59]

Any short diversions are going to require tunnels to be viable given the environment.
WIth modern tunnel boring machines the most disruptive part of tunneling is the location of portals.
I don't see much surface construction being a good idea near Manchester
I can't see much alternative to two underground platforms at Manchester Piccadilly and a new East West line. If that is built then there is a lot of scope for savings/improvements elsewhere.

Space for portals is very constrained, but I think there is space for an Ardwick to Ordsall tunnel, as shown in this thread:

Cost of four-tracking Castlefield.

The Castlefield viaduct is a notorious bottleneck that constrains the entire rail network in the North West. Ways round the constraint were discussed in this thread (now closed): https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/potential-ways-round-the-castlefield-problem.249725/ Many have said that the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HSTEd]

Space for portals is very constrained, but I think there is space for an Ardwick to Ordsall tunnel, as shown in this thread:

Cost of four-tracking Castlefield.

The Castlefield viaduct is a notorious bottleneck that constrains the entire rail network in the North West. Ways round the constraint were discussed in this thread (now closed): https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/potential-ways-round-the-castlefield-problem.249725/ Many have said that the...

www.railforums.co.uk

That gets you access to the Chat Moss, Huddersfield line, Glossop line and the Hope Valley, I think?

Ideally you'd get a portal that can access the London/Stoke lines too I think.
You might fit one on the CAF depot site on the west side of the Stockport railway just south of your proposed ARdwick portal though.

 

[Brubulus]

[

The CLC line is not very busy because the service is shocking. If you look at what it and the CLC (Liverpool side) serve, they should both easily sustain a 4tph Merseyrail style EMU service and be very well used as such. That means you need to take the expresses off and move them elsewhere, hence this proposal. The Fiddler's Ferry line doesn't run through any built up areas bar Warrington, nor would it be particularly useful for development, so it's ideal.

While it isn't busy in terms of train movements the involvement of long distance and very unpunctual expresses like the Norwich means it needs all the resilience it has got.

To be fair, even if they didn't build this, as a former regular user I can't help but think the line would be substantially more useful if they cut the two expresses back to Piccadilly main trainshed and replaced it with a purely local service operated using Class 195s (which would allow a speed-up over 15x), say 2tph semi fast Liverpool to Manchester Airport (South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington W, Warrington C, Birchwood, Urmston, Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Airport) and 2tph all stations Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road. That would be close enough to Merseyrail like and far better in terms of punctuality and capacity. Loss of a through Liverpool to Nottingham service would be a shame but if you look at these services there's a near total turnover of passengers at Manchester, and Liverpool presently I think doesn't have a Manchester Airport service at all.

Alternatively still have the 4 but run each all stations one side of Warrington and fast the other side.

Could work, but doesn't provide long-term capacity

That gets you access to the Chat Moss, Huddersfield line, Glossop line and the Hope Valley, I think?

Ideally you'd get a portal that can access the London/Stoke lines too I think.
You might fit one on the CAF depot site on the west side of the Stockport railway just south of your proposed ARdwick portal though.

If you're building this route, there is precisely zero point in not building a high speed railway to reach it instead of the WCML through Stockport, particularly if said railway avoids Crewe entirely instead of building a 4km tunnel under it. Ardwick is a good location for the second portal, minimising cost. Talking of cost the new line should use 2 tracks of the current conventional line from Edge Hill towards South Parkway, sharing the Lime St approach with other services and using the existing dive under at Ditton East. Especially since the CLC should function as an extension of Hunts Cross services, so there will be a 2 track railway from Edge Hill to Halton and Weaver Junctions, with the other 2 tracks used for the new rail link. If any extra connections are to be considered, a Golborne link might be a good idea, given the relatively limited cost and freeing up capacity through both Castlefield and the WCML, since both Manchester-Scotland and London-Scotland could use it, which removes all end doored/intercity stock from Castlefield.

There's no issue with high speed services using an underground through station, activities such as cleaning and catering restocking can be done at a service platform by a reversing siding.

 

[HSTEd]

[
Could work, but doesn't provide long-term capacity

If you're building this route, there is precisely zero point in not building a high speed railway to reach it instead of the WCML through Stockport, particularly if said railway avoids Crewe entirely instead of building a 4km tunnel under it.

Well apart from the enormous cost on account of more tunneling. Even reaching Poynton or similar would add billions to the price.

There's no issue with high speed services using an underground through station, activities such as cleaning and catering restocking can be done at a service platform by a reversing siding.

Well..... if we are building a new line to Liverpool we could just extend all Manchester terminators to Liverpool.

With Automatic Train operator, platform edge doors and very short signal blocks you can get the platform reoccupation time right down and run a lot of trains through even two platforms. Ofcourse if you built 400m platforms you could also stack shorter trains into the platforms to load/unload nearly simultaneously during disruption.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could work, but doesn't provide long-term capacity

If you extended the main TPE services to 7 or even 9 car and ran all of these CLC services as 6 car 195 formations, that'd be more capacity than you'd need for the foreseeable. Remember this was a 2 car DMU railway twenty years ago (indeed a lot of it was Pacers which are barely 1.5 coaches per unit anyway) - it's now so much more.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I think Victoria is approaching its capacity limits and can't directly serve the CLC anyway. As someone who has lived in Manchester for 15 years, Victoria is not really an amazingly located station, given Manchester's transport infrastructure.

If you did a Picc-Vic tunnel it would be OK I think.

There's no issue with high speed services using an underground through station, activities such as cleaning and catering restocking can be done at a service platform by a reversing siding

Or they can continue to a new parkway station in the suburbs.

Any short diversions are going to require tunnels to be viable given the environment.
WIth modern tunnel boring machines the most disruptive part of tunneling is the location of portals.

HS2 shows the pitfalls of projects that have to engage with lots of stakeholders. I don't see much surface construction being a good idea near Manchester

I think dealing with stakeholders in the north would be easier because there would be benefits to the local people.

Like OK sure there would be disruption like with HS2 but the existing line will get a meaningful improvement to local service.

Hasn't opening the section allow services that used to terminate at Victoria to now continue via Oxford Road etc , just made it worse.

Not sure. I only have looked at the current state in any detail.

 

[Snow1964]

If you did a Picc-Vic tunnel it would be OK I think.

The proposals followed a fairly curved alignment, so never going to be a high speed route out to the north. The reason was to avoid the huge underground telephone citadel (which for decades was classified so not public) below the General Post Office.

Part of Picc-Vic was actually built as cut and cover tunnel in basement of the Arndale shopping centre.

Of course many other cities in other countries have rebuilt stations with trains on two levels because haven't got room to expand sideways. Old Oak Common will have mix of low level and surface platforms so UK isn't against the concept.

 

[daodao]

If you extended the main TPE services to 7 or even 9 car and ran all of these CLC services as 6 car 195 formations, that'd be more capacity than you'd need for the foreseeable.

Well put. It is much more cost-effective to make better use of existing capacity by lengthening trains than building a lot of new expensive infrastructure. The original Chat Moss line from Liverpool to Manchester cannot be bettered for its directness.

 

[WAO]

There's no issue with high speed services using an underground through station, activities such as cleaning and catering restocking can be done at a service platform by a reversing siding.

You've got to detrain lots of long distance customers with luggage and special assistance, check the train is empty then despatch it to a siding over a slow speed junction. You also have had to build an expensive tunnelled siding underground longer than 400m with end junction and over-run. Then you have to ecs to the departure platform and allow plenty of time for loading for on-time departure.

You can't afford that sort of leisurely platform occupation underground. Think Victoria line - a call every 100s!

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

You've got to detrain lots of long distance customers with luggage and special assistance, check the train is empty then despatch it to a siding over a slow speed junction. You also have had to build an expensive tunnelled siding underground longer than 400m with end junction and over-run. Then you have to ecs to the departure platform and allow plenty of time for loading for on-time departure.

You can't afford that sort of leisurely platform occupation underground. Think Victoria line - a call every 100s!

WAO

The siding doesn't have to be positioned close to the station, it can be positioned wherever is convenient outside the city.

In addition, is there anything stopping the siding being rated for the carriage of passengers?
If so it will not require the train be confirmed empty before moving to it.

However, as noted the simplest solution is just to extend such trains to Liverpool.

 

[MarkyT]

The siding doesn't have to be positioned close to the station, it can be positioned wherever is convenient outside the city.

Additional running time from the station to the siding(s) and back would be needed, increasing fleet requirements over a usually shorter terminal platform reversal.

In addition, is there anything stopping the siding being rated for the carriage of passengers?
If so it will not require the train be confirmed empty before moving to it.

As on the Elizabeth Line at Paddington.

However, as noted the simplest solution is just to extend such trains to Liverpool.

The Liverpool terminus would need sufficient capacity clearly. Also, if the tunnel from the Liverpool direction heads to the east of Manchester after crossing the centre towards the Pennines, northbound HS2 trains heading to Manchester will likely be pointing the wrong way to continue on to Liverpool, unless the cross-city tunnel had additional expensive junctions and portals for many routes. Liverpool HS2 trains going that way will likely always be slower than direct trains avoiding Manchester.

For a mix of Regional HS Express and longer distance trains, I don't think one platform per direction is anywhere near sufficient, especially at 'super nodes' such as central Manchester where passenger turnover is likely to be very large and more people will have luggage. Couple that with fewer and smaller doors than typical for high-density interior layouts, and ~5 minute layovers will likely be necessary for many longer-distance trains even with a through station. Without additional platforms, there's a danger of creating a new Castlefield corridor problem with mixed services from a wide range of routes attempting to use a single pair of platforms. That suggests the less disruptive and cheaper former terminal design for NPR/HS2, with throat conflicts largely removed by a clever grade separation, was not as poor as determined by some commentators, as ~5 minute en route reversals would be practical for the NPR route, and would likely increase resilience when all the L&M trains are projected east across the Pennines, especially with modern trains designed specially for fast trouble free turnround procedures and possible step back crewing. Some of the 'NPR' trains might be more 'metro' in character and faster loading, albeit with a 200+km/h capability to maintain headways on the new fast tracks among the longer-distance traffic.

As it's now permitted to potentially carry a small number of overriding passengers into a siding and back while the driver walks through the train to the rear cab on the EL, then it might also be acceptable by the time NL&MR is built to carry a trainful of passenger for the last leg into a terminus while the driver walks to the other end. Imagine after Manchester Airport that the driver could switch into a special mode for the journey to Piccadilly, all on highly segregated tunnel/viaduct alignments no riskier than an automatic metro. Before the final rush for the doors, the driver should have reached the other cab, and train systems would have automatically gone through the changeover sequence so the back cab is ready for them to reassume control for departure as soon as they, or a step back relief, inserts their key. It could get reversals down to a couple of minutes when attempting to recover time. At all times in motion, there would still be a driver on board to assume charge if anything went wrong, so it could be a beneficial step towards greater automation without any destaffing.

 

[HSTEd]

Additional running time from the station to the siding(s) and back would be added, increasing fleet requirements over a usually shorter overall terminal platform reversal.

As on the Elizabeth Line at Paddington.

The Liverpool terminus would need sufficient capacity clearly. Also, if the tunnel from the Liverpool direction heads to the east of Manchester after crossing the centre towards the Pennines, northbound HS2 trains heading to Manchester will likely be pointing the wrong way to continue on to Liverpool, unless the cross-city tunnel had additional expensive junctions and portals for many routes. Liverpool HS2 trains going that way will likely always be slower than direct trains avoiding Manchester.

I was assuming that no high speed route heading east had been constructed, and that the natural direction that the london facing lines would approach from would be from the east.

After all the line into Piccadilly from the south does point slightly in the eastwards direction.
Obviously if the line connecs from the west end of the station, the trains would extend to (or towards) Leeds.

For a mix of Regional HS Express and longer distance trains, I don't think one platform per direction is anywhere near sufficient, especially at 'super nodes' such as central Manchester where passenger turnover is likely to be very large and more people will have luggage. Couple that with fewer and smaller doors than typical for high-density interior layouts, and ~5 minute layovers will likely be necessary for many longer-distance trains even with a through station.

Well this railway would use rolling stock that has not been built yet, or indeed has not even been designed yet. We could probably just specify a hybrid Class 395 style layout if we want.
Given that we have total control of the rolling stock design and the platforms would see no other traffic, we can guarantee level boarding with platform edge doors.

I think five minutes is wildly excessive, personally.
If the railway is succesful, the number of people who don't know how to conduct themselves will inevitably fall to a low level, because there won't be enough first timers to be a serious problem.
In disruption we can get the reoccupation right down thanks to ATO and short signal blocks.

We can probably have a train stopped in the platform, doors open, for the majority of the time.

Without additional platforms, there's a danger of creating a new Castlefield corridor problem with mixed services from a wide range of routes attempting to use a single pair of platforms. That suggests the less disruptive and cheaper former terminal design for NPR/HS2, with throat conflicts largely removed by a clever grade separation, was not as poor as determined by some commentators, as ~5 minute en route reversals would be practical for the NPR route, and would likely increase resilience when all the L&M trains are projected east across the Pennines, especially with modern trains designed specially for fast trouble free turnround procedures and possible step back crewing. Some of the 'NPR' trains might be more 'metro' in character and faster loading, albeit with a 200+km/h capability to maintain headways on the new fast tracks among the longer-distance traffic.

I seem to recall that that station design required an enormous viaduct that may be a hard sell to the governing authorities in Manchester.
The station was probably operationally fine, now we can just have trains move without drivers for some distances.
I Just wonder how hard it would be to sell.

Also Castlefield seems to function to some degree, and would function better if the platforms had more room at Piccadilly.
I thought the major headache for castlefield is the lack of grade separation, which would not be an issue here?

 

[MarkyT]

I was assuming that no high speed route heading east had been constructed, and that the natural direction that the london facing lines would approach from would be from the east.

After all the line into Piccadilly from the south does point slightly in the eastwards direction.
Obviously if the line connecs from the west end of the station, the trains would extend to (or towards) Leeds.


Well this railway would use rolling stock that has not been built yet, or indeed has not even been designed yet. We could probably just specify a hybrid Class 395 style layout if we want.
Given that we have total control of the rolling stock design and the platforms would see no other traffic, we can guarantee level boarding with platform edge doors.

I think some were commenting that other long distance high speed services could also share the infrastructure. I fully support this idea to build the case for all the new high speed sections, but I don't believe that sharing can generally include the station platforms at major hubs, unless the number of platforms is increased.

I think five minutes is wildly excessive, personally.

I was surprised when first riding the S-Bahn through the low level of Zurich HBf, probably in the 1990s. There was a dwell of over 5 minutes, which surprised me, but I checked the TT and found it was timed throughout the day. That's an underground through station clearly, with multiple tracks in either direction, so a following service can be pulling in to the adjacent platform as the previous one is departing. What the extended dwell did was to ensure rock solid timekeeping on a fairly complex network and presumably, while at the time I rode it was fairly quiet, the dwells would also cope adequately with maximum peak loading time demands with the large double-decker trains.

If the railway is succesful, the number of people who don't know how to conduct themselves will inevitably fall to a low level, because there won't be enough first timers to be a serious problem.
In disruption we can get the reoccupation right down thanks to ATO and short signal blocks.

Another idea to help improve loading speed would be to have platforms either side of each track at the busiest stations, the so called 'Spanish solution', with exit side doors opening shortly before the entry side. Even with this, I don't think a two platfrom station is really practical if more than just the NPR group of services was to use it at a major hub.

We can probably have a train stopped in the platform, doors open, for the majority of the time.


I seem to recall that that station design required an enormous viaduct that may be a hard sell to the governing authorities in Manchester.
The station was probably operationally fine, now we can just have trains move without drivers for some distances.
I Just wonder how hard it would be to sell.

I wonder if people complain about the existing 'huge viaduct' the existing WCML uses for the last mile or so in from Longsight, or the residents of Stockport about their vast brick monstrosity? The new grade separations in the throat would have been built wholly within what is currently a light industrial area. A central tunnel and through station could require major demolitions in places that might be far less palatable. Many commentators latched onto this aspect of the terminus design for engagement when in fact they were wholly against HS2 in principle, or were pushing single-mindedly for a through station solution.

Also Castlefield seems to function to some degree, and would function better if the platforms had more room at Piccadilly.
I thought the major headache for castlefield is the lack of grade separation, which would not be an issue here?

A number of factors compounded.

 

[frodshamfella]

Well put. It is much more cost-effective to make better use of existing capacity by lengthening trains than building a lot of new expensive infrastructure. The original Chat Moss line from Liverpool to Manchester cannot be bettered for its directness.

Seems logical, then money saved.can be used on other things , electrification Crewe to Chester.and N Wales for example. Taking Merseyrail to Wigan. Do something to improve rail / tram to Liverpool Airport.

 

[cle]

Controversial perhaps, but while there would be benefits to the Oxford Road changes (mainly for station users) and even P13/14, I suppose - I don't quite think that the investment yields that much. It supports an extra 1-2tph?

But the Corridor is surviving as is, has been for years and it doesn't feel to me that a ton is missing, or underserved, west of Oxford Road. More could terminate in the Piccadilly shed, from the Stockport direction too, comfortably! It is not that intensively used.

Ultimately CC needs to service 3-4 Warrington services, and 3-4 Salford Crescent services, at minimum - in their various capacities. Then 1-2 Wigan / Eccles.

To me, growth is far more valuable to focus and deliver through the Victoria axis, including growth at Salford Central. And some of the interesting OA opps - plus works at Rochdale/Staly/Vic turnback, to deliver more frequency.

 

[HSTEd]

I think some were commenting that other long distance high speed services could also share the infrastructure. I fully support this idea to build the case for all the new high speed sections, but I don't believe that sharing can generally include the station platforms at major hubs, unless the number of platforms is increased.

I was surprised when first riding the S-Bahn through the low level of Zurich HBf, probably in the 1990s. There was a dwell of over 5 minutes, which surprised me, but I checked the TT and found it was timed throughout the day. That's an underground through station clearly, with multiple tracks in either direction, so a following service can be pulling in to the adjacent platform as the previous one is departing. What the extended dwell did was to ensure rock solid timekeeping on a fairly complex network and presumably, while at the time I rode it was fairly quiet, the dwells would also cope adequately with maximum peak loading time demands with the large double-decker trains.

The problem we face, ultimately, is that attempting to add more platforms to provide improved resilience would just drive the cost up to the point where the programme collapses and we get nothing.

I am skeptical that any train using this station complex will ever be truly "long distance".
The journeys that will travel through this station will be overwhelmingly ~2 hours or shorter.

There might some people with luggage but the reality is that the vast majority of these people will have made the journey before. If we ensure proper design of the stations and trains, we can likely move people on and off the trains rapidly. We could even provide count down timers on the trains so that people know to be ready to disembark.

Solid timekeeping is all very well, but if it becomes too expensive the project simply won't happen.

With big underground platforms and full grade separation, we can probably get 12-15 trains per hour per direction through a two platform station, especially if any short trains can double up at opposite ends.
This would take trains driving under Automatic control with comparatively high brake rates (maybe emergency track brakes to shrink overlaps), platform edge doors, fast opening double leaf doors and a Class 185 or similar interior.

I wonder if people complain about the existing 'huge viaduct' the existing WCML uses for the last mile or so in from Longsight, or the residents of Stockport about their vast brick monstrosity?

Just because victorians got away with it once does not mean we can get away with it today.
The world from before the planning system is gone and it won't be back.

The new grade separations in the throat would have been built wholly within what is currently a light industrial area. A central tunnel and through station could require major demolitions in places that might be far less palatable. Many commentators latched onto this aspect of the terminus design for engagement when in fact they were wholly against HS2 in principle, or were pushing single-mindedly for a through station solution.

That whole area is supposedly being torn down to be yet another extension of the city centre, so its probably off limits for that sort of infrastructure.
Indeed I would expect the reconstruction to be well under way before any new project can be funded.

As an example of what could be done, 19m diameter tunnel boring machines are available. We could dig a single tunnel bore in the style of the BART extension or the Barcelona metro and provide a pair of platforms that could easily be 13-14m wide.
I'm fairly confident we could load and unload the high speed equivalent of Class 185s rather rapidly in such an environment.

As for surface access arrangements, those are pretty much entirely dependent on passenger numbers, so how many do we expect?

 

[The Planner]

But the Corridor is surviving as is, has been for years and it doesn't feel to me that a ton is missing, or underserved, west of Oxford Road. More could terminate in the Piccadilly shed, from the Stockport direction too, comfortably! It is not that intensively used.

Comfortably? There are 12 tph off peak into the shed from Stockport. How many more are you expecting to fit in factoring in Slade Lane on the slows, as well as trains from Ardwick?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Comfortably? There are 12 tph off peak into the shed from Stockport. How many more are you expecting to fit in factoring in Slade Lane on the slows, as well as trains from Ardwick?

Platform 12 is barely used for one. And you could add two platforms to Piccadilly's north side relatively cheaply on the car park.

 

[The Ham]

I am skeptical that any train using this station complex will ever be truly "long distance".
The journeys that will travel through this station will be overwhelmingly ~2 hours or shorter.

There might some people with luggage but the reality is that the vast majority of these people will have made the journey before. If we ensure proper design of the stations and trains, we can likely move people on and off the trains rapidly. We could even provide count down timers on the trains so that people know to be ready to disembark.

If you look at the mix of a station like London Waterloo from the services run by the 444's & 450's is much at you described:
Not truly long distance
Overwhelmingly 2 hours or shorter
Only some people with luggage
The vast majority having made the journey before

They typically don't have long layovers.

In the case of the Basingstoke Stoppers (450's) at the Basingstoke end, they arrive have 4 minutes to clear the train and then depart to a siding. The passengers are long gone from the platform by the time the train departs (and that's with one set of stairs).

Those passengers who have not left the platform are those waiting for another service.

That's routinely a 160m train (8 x 20 coaches) and when it's not it's mostly longer, that happens twice an hour every hour.

Even slowing it down a bit by having a 444 type train isn't going to impact the ability to empty the train by very much.

You could speed it up, for instance having two people walking through to clear the train, having two routes off the platform, having escalators as well as stairs, having double sided platforms, or simply sending the empty train to another station.

Given that we're taking about an urban area it's not unreasonable to create a new platform (between the tracks) to allow turn backs to happen (see Woking platform 3 as an example).

One such station almost certainly wouldn't be enough, but create 3 such stations and they would only need to cater with up to 5tph (would allow 15tph at the main station) which would allow 12 minutes from approach to them be clear of the junction on departure (3 minutes approach slot, so longer than needed, 6 minutes to turn the train around and 3 minutes departure slot, again longer than needed). Given that works at Basingstoke, it should work at a turn back station.

Each of those stations would have at least 4tph (12tph at the main station), so a decent service frequency and it wouldn't have to be at an existing station location - in fact if it wasn't an existing station location that would be better as it puts another part of the city close to a railway station.

You might need a backup turn around point really close to the main station for very delayed services or if there was some other issue.

However overall probably entirely workable.

 

[The Planner]

Platform 12 is barely used for one. And you could add two platforms to Piccadilly's north side relatively cheaply on the car park.

That isnt what was said though, the claim is the current shed can take a lot more.