• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester Piccadilly P15-16 - my idea for an alternative

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
From the Northern timetable thread:

A complete side-thought here...would it be more affordable than the full P15-16 project to deck over the area between 13-14 and the Picc trainshed and provide 2 or 3 5-car west-facing terminal platforms instead?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,278
Location
Fenny Stratford
From the Northern timetable thread:

A complete side-thought here...would it be more affordable than the full P15-16 project to deck over the area between 13-14 and the Picc trainshed and provide 2 or 3 5-car west-facing terminal platforms instead?

Do you mean that "V" which seems to hold a taxi rank/car park?
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
I think you'd find that it'd cost almost as much for half the benefit. And without some significant demolition of properties you are going to end up with fairly short platforms.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,726
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I think you'd find that it'd cost almost as much for half the benefit. And without some significant demolition of properties you are going to end up with fairly short platforms.

Plus, if that were to go ahead what would be the point of the Ordsall Chord? Until P5 closes at Manchester Oxford Road there are effectively 3 terminating platforms anyway, with most through services using only 2 of them. So you'd be replacing almost like for like, just moving the terminating platforms east to Piccadilly with all the extra signalling & points work that would be involved, not to mention conflicts between terminating and through services there. It would be far better to stick with the notion of a P15 & 16, using these for westbound and 13-14 for east/southbound services.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The point of the Chord is to give access to Oxford Road and Piccadilly, isn't it? The Airport is a weak argument if you look how lightly loaded trains past Picc are.

(Not that I agree with the Chord given limited funding - if it was either-or, as it seems, P15/16 would have been more beneficial - but that's been done on another thread).
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
The point of the Chord is to give access to Oxford Road and Piccadilly, isn't it? The Airport is a weak argument if you look how lightly loaded trains past Picc are.

(Not that I agree with the Chord given limited funding - if it was either-or, as it seems, P15/16 would have been more beneficial - but that's been done on another thread).

While you continue to believe that the passenger numbers were the basis for the Northern Hub business case, instead of the real world business case, you'll believe that that the "Airport is a weak argument". Unfortunately in the real world if your arguments were used, there wouldn't have been any investments. However often you wish to post them on these forums, fortunately your arguments lost 7 or 8 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What business case is there for passenger rail improvements other than passenger numbers?

I personally believe it was a vanity project put into place to appease the North with little practical insight into how people actually use the network around there, having grown up using the North West's rail network intensively for the first 22 years of my life.
 

driver_m

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2011
Messages
2,248
The issue is just as much outside the station as the station itself. 11 and 12 are the prime example of this as they are underused because of the need to go through platform 9 to get there, and needing a path to cross pl13. Pl15 and 16 are the only real game changer in town. Grayling is talking out of his backside thinking he can do a Thameslink style core run through 13 and 14 as this just wouldn't allow for any expansion of long distance services i.e WC to Bolton, reintroduction of XC going north. They take up too much time on those platforms.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
Existing passenger numbers don't make the case - it's potential increases. Now I accept your view that Manchester Piccadilly is a much more significant destination than the Airport (for rail passengers at least) but in general terms I doubt that West facing platforms at Piccadilly would be hugely useful. Through trains to various destinations (airport included) will always generate more income.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
FWIW I have long stood on P13 in the late 90s and thought you could close 11/12 and squeeze in a 3ish car P12 through platform on its approach trackbed. But I think the need for longer trains would have removed the value of it by now.

The other cheaper thing you could potentially do on 14 (only) is add a shorter bridge half the length of 14 which would allow arrivals into the two halves to occur independently a bit like the long platform at Chester.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
I too think that a third through platform could be squeezed in ....but I suspect that the cost would be in the same ball park as the proposed 15/16.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I doubt it would be anywhere near as much as it wouldn't require 240m or thereabouts of new bridge. But it'd be quite short so possibly not much future use.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
You still have the issues of trying to path on the two tracks through Oxford Road and Deansgate, all you do is remove the bottleneck through the Piccadilly platforms at the loss of direct services
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
I doubt it would be anywhere near as much as it wouldn't require 240m or thereabouts of new bridge. But it'd be quite short so possibly not much future use.

Sorry - I missed the 3ish car bit. I was assuming a full length platform but starting under where the roof is now. I agree that a "shorty" as you describe could be done much easier but as you say - to what purpose?
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
There is the space and potential for a loop/chord from the P13 track, maybe after 386 signal, feeding into 374 signal (at the end of Platform 9 and acting as the final outlet signal for Platforms 9 to 12 inclusive), although whether or not it would be worthwhile is another matter altogether. It would probably be of more use as a supplementary measure to extra platforms than a substitute anyway.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
What business case is there for passenger rail improvements other than passenger numbers?

I personally believe it was a vanity project put into place to appease the North with little practical insight into how people actually use the network around there, having grown up using the North West's rail network intensively for the first 22 years of my life.

I've tried explaining to you several times, the latest in the Northern May 18 timetable thread this morning, why passenger numbers were not the prime factor in the business case for the Northern Hub. The investment depends on payback to the government from tax on increased economic activity in the North from the whole economy, not just the small % of the economy represented by the rail industry. As is also true with the business cases for HS2, NPR etc. I've also in the past posted links to documents where this is explained.

You are welcome to your personal beliefs, but while you fail to understand the reasons why decisions are taken in the real world, they won't reflect what happens in the real world. If you base your beliefs on poor quality anecdotal evidence like your personal experience, then again they won't bear much relation to the real world. Its interesting you talk in terms of believing, given the dictionary definition of "accept that (something) is true, especially without proof" ......
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You are welcome to your personal beliefs, but while you fail to understand the reasons why decisions are taken in the real world, they won't reflect what happens in the real world.

I'm sorry, I cannot and will not accept that - what it says is that there is only one macro-level political approach that is valid (the one that was taken), and that clearly is not the case.

The "Northern Hub" thing has in my view been a sop from start to finish and has addressed little or no real-world problems effectively. Just like HS2 north of Birmingham[1], the money spent on which would benefit provincial cities if it were instead spent on giving them all a German standard of fully integrated city transport system.

[1] I believe it is needed south of Birmingham to provide an additional 2 WCML fast lines to ease capacity. That capacity constraint is much less of an issue north of Birmingham and so the case is much weaker.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
The economic case for HS2 is stronger north of Birmingham through counting the wider economic and growth benefits (e.g. Airport City at Manchester) of HS2 links stimulating business to business connectivity.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
I'm sorry, I cannot and will not accept that - what it says is that there is only one macro-level political approach that is valid (the one that was taken), and that clearly is not the case.

The "Northern Hub" thing has in my view been a sop from start to finish and has addressed little or no real-world problems effectively. Just like HS2 north of Birmingham[1], the money spent on which would benefit provincial cities if it were instead spent on giving them all a German standard of fully integrated city transport system.

[1] I believe it is needed south of Birmingham to provide an additional 2 WCML fast lines to ease capacity. That capacity constraint is much less of an issue north of Birmingham and so the case is much weaker.

Its pretty obvious that you won't accept that from your continued refusal to consider any factors outside passenger numbers, or trivia such as the number of DMUs freed up, the distance passengers have to walk or whatever. Of course there are many valid macro-level approaches possible, however a smaller number that meet the targets set for a project and even fewer that meet them in an optimum manner.

The Northern Hub addressed its initial objective of attracting investment to increase capacity into and through Manchester within a realistic budget with the optimum business case (which also optimised the economic benefit to those of us living in the North). If the increase in southbound paths from Piccadilly and the doubling of capacity at Victoria doesn't address a real-world problem, I don't know what does.

Where are the facts and figures to back up your "view" that money would be better spent on a German standard of fully integrated transport? If you have any facts, figures, research etc that backs this up, I'd be very interested in seeing them, until then they remain your views or beliefs, lacking any proof. As Ianno87 correctly says the business case for the full HS2 network including wider economic benefits is higher than Phase 1 alone, capacity constraints are only part of the overall picture so your assertion that the case is much weaker north of Birmingham is untrue.

TuYcXv9.png


Source: National Audit Office 2016 HS2 report
 
Last edited:

PR1Berske

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2010
Messages
3,025
The economic case for HS2 is stronger north of Birmingham through counting the wider economic and growth benefits (e.g. Airport City at Manchester) of HS2 links stimulating business to business connectivity.

There's no economic case for HS2 anywhere, in truth, but particularly up here where it'll be too far in the future before an inch of track is laid. P15/16 would benefit us far better than HS2.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Here's what I'd do.
Demolish Deansgate's platforms, Add 2 extra through platforms at both Piccadilly and Oxford Road and 4 track it to Castlefield Jct where 2 split to Liverpool and 2 continue North to Bolton. Then add a walkway to Oxford Road to link the Trams or if you want to skimp out, tell passengers to use Piccadilly for Metrolink services.
 

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,268
Location
County Durham
Here's what I'd do.
Demolish Deansgate's platforms, Add 2 extra through platforms at both Piccadilly and Oxford Road and 4 track it to Castlefield Jct where 2 split to Liverpool and 2 continue North to Bolton. Then add a walkway to Oxford Road to link the Trams or if you want to skimp out, tell passengers to use Piccadilly for Metrolink services.
Deansgate has the advantage of through services to destinations on Metrolink that Piccadilly doesn't, though otherwise I can't see any reason for it not to close
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Here's what I'd do.
Demolish Deansgate's platforms, Add 2 extra through platforms at both Piccadilly and Oxford Road and 4 track it to Castlefield Jct where 2 split to Liverpool and 2 continue North to Bolton. Then add a walkway to Oxford Road to link the Trams or if you want to skimp out, tell passengers to use Piccadilly for Metrolink services.
I can't argue with any of that
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Deansgate has the advantage of through services to destinations on Metrolink that Piccadilly doesn't, though otherwise I can't see any reason for it not to close

It used to be the main station for Deansgate area shoppers and workers, but as the service calls have been reduced Salford Central at the other end of Deansgate has kind of taken over that role.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Extending Oxford Road platforms to 240m towards Deansgate, closing Deansgate and adding a walkway would probably be the best bet, though expensive. 4 is quite enough, platform 1 is barely used as it is. Changing to two islands would be a better option if possible, one island in each direction, though as a listed building it's probably not possible.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
I can!

Which buildings would he demolish?

Why does he think Oxford Road needs six through platforms but Piccadilly only four?
The first answer is all that's needed and turn the remaining empty space into affordable & social housing and homeless shelters.
The second awnswer is ooops...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top