Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

mr_jrt · 3 Jun 2018

Bletchleyite said:
What short terminal platforms? They're near enough all 11 x 24m (though 11 and 12 are an oddity).

Fair enough then. I don't have access to actual lengths, so I comparatively figured the longest ones (4, 5, 8 & 9) were long enough for 11-car Pendolino lengths (so at least 11 x 24m), 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 were probably 8 or 9-car platforms, 10 & 11 were at best 6-car, and 12 was probably a 4 or 5-car platform.

Happy to stand corrected.

-- EDIT --

Just went looking and found this, which whilst not authoritative, is likely to be at least in the right ballpark: https://www.simsig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=simulations:manchesterpiccadilly

By those lengths I make the platforms (using 20m car lengths):
11 & 12: 5-car
10: 9-car
5, 8 & 9: 17-car
6 & 7: 14-car
1-4: 12 car

...using 23m car lengths:
11 & 12: 4-car
10: 8-car
5, 8 & 9: 14-car
6 & 7: 12-car
1-4: 10 car

...and finally for good measure, using 26m car lengths:
11 & 12: 4-car
10: 7-car
5, 8 & 9: 13-car
6 & 7: 10-car
1-4: 9 car

So I guess my proposal would extend 10, 11 & 12 to about the same length as 1-4 are currently, and maybe give you an additional couple of long platforms just as long.

Post-HS2 one has to wonder if there will ever be a need for services as long as the current extended Pendolinos again, so perhaps shortening the long platforms to lengthen the shorter ones might be what ends up happening...

RailUK Forums

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

Altfish said:
I trust all these trains per hour calculations have factored in the freight trains heading to Trafford Park that use p13/14 at Piccadilly.

Mine have! 12tph of passenger services and 1tph of freight is more than achievable for a 4 platformed Oxford Road and 2 through platforms at Piccadilly.

The Planner · 3 Jun 2018

Every train is counted, including freight, otherwise I suspect someone would have tried to make it higher..

The Planner · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
Do we actually need more than 12tph running through Piccadilly and Oxford Road (with no terminating services)? Correct me if I am wrong but that is better than the 8+2 we had a month ago but worse than the 11+3 we have now (if nothing is cancelled).

That isn't our decision, we just have to try and make them fit and raise issues.

PR1Berske · 3 Jun 2018

The Mayfield Hotel might have something to say...

Senex · 3 Jun 2018

B&I said:
This Manchester Trinity scheme sounds interesting. Tell me more

Here's a page from Stanley Hall's Rail Centres : Manchester (Ian Allan 1995) which shews a sketch-map and says a little. Downloadable copies of the 1945 planning documents are at http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/mappingmanchester/plans/. The station would (like Manchester Exchange) have actually been on the Salford side of the river.

Senex · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
If you think Germany is much richer than the UK I would highly recommend you visit the former east. It is very visably poorer than the former West Germany. As a resident of Greater Manchester and someone who visited Leipzig a few months ago, I would strongly argue they are not comparable.

I know the former DDR, now the Fünf Neue Bundesländer, very well, thank you, having been there many times over the last 50 years and having actually worked there for a year whilst the old régime was still in power. The east is still certainly visibly poorer than the west, but then much of this country is visibly poorer than western (and southern) Germany and in quite a few places doesn't now look that much different from the present east German states.
As for Leipzig and Manchester, I did out of curiosity look up comparative official statistics for both a while back and found the comparison interesting. Unfortunately I did not note everything down. Leiupzig in 2015 had a population on 560,472 in an area of 297.8 sq.km, the metropolitan population being 1,389,000. In the same year Manchester was 530,300 in an area of 98.45 sq.km with an urban population of 2,550,000. Leipzig's "gross value created" was €16,570 million and Manchester's "gross value added" was £16,107 million. (An economist will need to tell me if I have got the wrong figures to compare!)
The Leipzig tunnel with its associated approach-lines and non-conflicting junctions at both ends cost €960 million, with half of that coming from the state of Saxony. Manchester's curve cost £85 million, and even the total Northern Hub Programme would have cost only £600 million, to include platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly and the works at Oxford Road.

mr_jrt · 3 Jun 2018

PR1Berske said:
The Mayfield Hotel might have something to say...

I presume you mean the Macdonald Manchester Hotel? ...because the official plans aren't actually that different when it comes to how close things would be:

billio · 3 Jun 2018

Senex said:
Here's a page from Stanley Hall's Rail Centres : Manchester (Ian Allan 1995) which shews a sketch-map and says a little. Downloadable copies of the 1945 planning documents are at http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/mappingmanchester/plans/. The station would (like Manchester Exchange) have actually been on the Salford side of the river.View attachment 47754

One thing I am not so sure about and mentioned in the proposal, is the concept of one large station for a city like Manchester. Personally, travelling from Leeds, I find it quite useful that I can catch trains and alight in different parts of the city depending on what I am planning to do. Other cities, for example Leeds, could probably do with one or two more stations, in addition to the main one, at which regional trains could call..

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

The Planner said:
That isn't our decision, we just have to try and make them fit and raise issues.

Not talking in a professional capacity, what do you think would be sufficient frequency?

Senex said:
I know the former DDR, now the Fünf Neue Bundesländer, very well, thank you, having been there many times over the last 50 years and having actually worked there for a year whilst the old régime was still in power. The east is still certainly visibly poorer than the west, but then much of this country is visibly poorer than western (and southern) Germany and in quite a few places doesn't now look that much different from the present east German states.
As for Leipzig and Manchester, I did out of curiosity look up comparative official statistics for both a while back and found the comparison interesting. Unfortunately I did not note everything down. Leiupzig in 2015 had a population on 560,472 in an area of 297.8 sq.km, the metropolitan population being 1,389,000. In the same year Manchester was 530,300 in an area of 98.45 sq.km with an urban population of 2,550,000. Leipzig's "gross value created" was €16,570 million and Manchester's "gross value added" was £16,107 million. (An economist will need to tell me if I have got the wrong figures to compare!)
The Leipzig tunnel with its associated approach-lines and non-conflicting junctions at both ends cost €960 million, with half of that coming from the state of Saxony. Manchester's curve cost £85 million, and even the total Northern Hub Programme would have cost only £600 million, to include platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly and the works at Oxford Road.

Fair enough about Deutschland! I really like Germany but I do get anoyed when its portrayed as a land of milk and honey! The target2 debt means its prosperity is built on very poor foundations. Your quoting stats for the City borough of Manchester which does not include a swathe of the actual city and only a fifth of Greater Manchester. I think its a mistake to have a borough that is called Manchester so places like Trafford, Prestwich, Failsworth, Reddish and Droylsden are not counted in the figures, let alone Stockport, Bolton, Bury etc. In reality Manchester is a much bigger city than Leipzig although probably not the full 2.5 million of Greater Manchester. The Metrolink big bang cost £1.5bn and the Trafford Park Line will cost at least £350m. The plans for extend the Airport Line to terminal 2 are at a late stage and they will probably be ready to start work once the Trafford Park Line opens. I know Leipzig has trams but I am guessing they haven't had that level of investment. Many members don't like Metrolink but it can't be discounted from investment especially the city centre lines are the result in difficulty in expanding the rail network in the area at reasonable cost. The electrification of Chat Moss line and to Preston will cost a small fortune, the Castlefield corridor has had huge spending on signalling, its not just £85m spent to build the chord. Germany has shown the risk of the sort of projects you want, the cost overruns exceed those of new lines in the UK (which we do quite well when you look at Metrolink and Crossrail etc).

Greybeard33 · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
Do we actually need more than 12tph running through Piccadilly and Oxford Road (with no terminating services)? Correct me if I am wrong but that is better than the 8+2 we had a month ago but worse than the 11+3 we have now (if nothing is cancelled).

Altfish said:
I trust all these trains per hour calculations have factored in the freight trains heading to Trafford Park that use p13/14 at Piccadilly.

Chester1 said:
Mine have! 12tph of passenger services and 1tph of freight is more than achievable for a 4 platformed Oxford Road and 2 through platforms at Piccadilly.

From my count there were, in the standard hour, 9tph through Piccadilly + 3tph Oxford Road under the old timetable, including the hourly freight path and the Northern Ordsall Chord service to Oxford Road. The new timetable increased the totals to 12 + 2 (changed to 11 + 3 under the Northern emergency timetable).

Once electrification is complete, it is planned to add a Northern Leeds to Airport service via the Ordsall Chord, giving 13 + 2, i.e. the corridor will be at maximum capacity.

Which two of the planned services do you propose to remove, in order to avoid Oxford Road terminations and keep passenger services through Picc 13/14 at 12tph?

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

Greybeard33 said:
From my count there were, in the standard hour, 9tph through Piccadilly + 3tph Oxford Road under the old timetable, including the hourly freight path and the Northern Ordsall Chord service to Oxford Road. The new timetable increased the totals to 12 + 2 (changed to 11 + 3 under the Northern emergency timetable).

Once electrification is complete, it is planned to add a Northern Leeds to Airport service via the Ordsall Chord, giving 13 + 2, i.e. the corridor will be at maximum capacity.

Which two of the planned services do you propose to remove, in order to avoid Oxford Road terminations and keep passenger services through Picc 13/14 at 12tph?

The Ordsall Chord service only ran off peak six times a day for 5 months so I wasn't counting it. If politically possible I would divert ATW Llandudno to Victoria due to its low capacity and long occupancy of the Mayfield siding. I would "indefinitely pause" the third Ordsall Chord service and reduce the services to something like:

2tph CLC stoppers terminating at Piccadilly and waiting in Mayfield siding
1tph CLC Northern Connect
1tph EMT
3tph TPE
2tph Northern - Blackpool /Preston /Barrow /Windermere via Bolton
1tph to Wigan/Blackpool via Chat Moss
1tph Northern - Lime Street
1tph Northern - Wigan via Westhoughton

12tph of passenger services + 1tph of freight. Everything else can run to (or though) Victoria. I would start sorting out platforms so some Bolton services can run as 2 x 319s from Preston.

Once Oxford Road and junctions in the Manchester area have been rebuilt then platform 15 and 16 should be built. If they are built first then too many services will be crammed through them again and delays will stackup.

lejog · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
The Ordsall Chord service only ran off peak six times a day for 5 months so I wasn't counting it. If politically possible I would divert ATW Llandudno to Victoria due to its low capacity and long occupancy of the Mayfield siding. I would "indefinitely pause" the third Ordsall Chord service and reduce the services to something like:

2tph CLC stoppers terminating at Piccadilly and waiting in Mayfield siding
1tph CLC Northern Connect
1tph EMT
3tph TPE
2tph Northern - Blackpool /Preston /Barrow /Windermere via Bolton
1tph to Wigan/Blackpool via Chat Moss
1tph Northern - Lime Street
1tph Northern - Wigan via Westhoughton

12tph of passenger services + 1tph of freight. Everything else can run to (or though) Victoria. I would start sorting out platforms so some Bolton services can run as 2 x 319s from Preston.

Once Oxford Road and junctions in the Manchester area have been rebuilt then platform 15 and 16 should be built. If they are built first then too many services will be crammed through them again and delays will stackup.

Isn't the Chat Moss-Wigan-Blackpool service to replaced by the Cumbria services - your list includes both?
I certainly wouldn't be in the business of delaying the long promised Calder Valley link to Piccadilly which formed part of the Hub business case at the expense of all those Bolton/Preston services which weren't.

Altfish · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
If politically possible I would divert ATW Llandudno to Victoria due to its low capacity and long occupancy of the Mayfield siding.

Many people on that train are heading to the Airport; by calling at Piccadilly it is a same platform change to get to the airport.
Diverting it to Victoria, is either a long tram ride or wait for a train via the Ordsall chord...both will involve platform changes.

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

lejog said:
Isn't the Chat Moss-Wigan-Blackpool service to replaced by the Cumbria services - your list includes both?
I certainly wouldn't be in the business of delaying the long promised Calder Valley link to Piccadilly which formed part of the Hub business case at the expense of all those Bolton/Preston services which weren't.

I thought Blackpool was having 2tph to Piccadilly. Are the Cumbrian services going to be hourly? Perhaps you could allocate 1tph to a third Ordsall Chord service instead. Hard choices would have to be made but 12tph through Piccadilly is still a big improvement on 8tph + 2tph of Oxford Road terminating services that we had until December. With the disaster of the new timetable in mind, it is hard to believe that much use could be made of 2 extra through platforms while neighbouring junctions are all flat and mostly slow.

Altfish said:
Many people on that train are heading to the Airport; by calling at Piccadilly it is a same platform change to get to the airport.
Diverting it to Victoria, is either a long tram ride or wait for a train via the Ordsall chord...both will involve platform changes.

I would be interested to see the breakdown of final destinations but I guess most people are heading to Manchester not the airport. There would be a same platform change for the Airport at Newton-le-Willows, dependant on decent timings. 2 or 3 coach units are unsuitable and the service fills Mayfield siding most of the time. Extending the CLC stoppers to termimate at Piccadilly would benefit more people and be a better use of paths and the siding.

TBirdFrank · 3 Jun 2018

The aspiration of the 1980s was one principal station for Manchester.
The aspiration of the 21+teens seems to be to destroy that.
There seems to be an acceptance that through long distance passengers should accept changing trains - let's get this straight - they won't and should not be asked to, especially when the chances of finding a seat after the change are snowball in hell.
If anyone had given me a crystal ball and showed me how standards, ambience and journey choice have been so destroyed in the face of growing car and airline competition at the end of steam fifty years ago, I would not have believed it - but it is there all around us - blockades - utter contempt for the travelling public, railway types actually trying to justify the appalling way things are now run, collapsing unco-ordinated timetables and a media so uninformed and easily misguided that they can be told anything and off they go down blind alley after blind alley.

Fraser had it right - we are indeed doomed if we follow this road.

The way out - for Manchester, Make Network Rail, ATW, Northern, TPX, XC, West Coast Trains Ltd, and TfGM, sit down with a Manchester Mayor with teeth and work out what we need. Shoot HS2 dead now. Build turn backs where HS2 is currently to land. connect to Victoria and the Calder Valley via the Etihad, reserve Mayfield for HS2 if it ever happens. Access the airport via a Fairfield - ish to Denton junction, link and a Stockport / Cheadle Village, Heald Greenish junction and it all works and you don't need to overload Oxford Road as we are currently doomed to do now.

Sorry if you have heard it before - but we are now seeing, as we always would, that Atkins, NR, the DfT etc have ballsed up big time as those of us with the intellect to see it would happen have always described.

Thank God I am retired and don't have to rely on this lot for a living!

HSTEd · 3 Jun 2018

One way to solve this problem is probably to bite the bullet and find a way of crushing two more running lines between Picadilly and the junction east of Deansgate.
The reconstruction would leave you with 4 platforms at Picadilly and Oxford Road, and probably two platform sat Deansgate, but four lines throughout.

Providing long platforms and then essentially all Picadilly trains could run through and terminate to the west of the city. The Picadilly terminus as it exists now would be slimmed down or essentially abolished.

But it would mean coring a through a lot of the city, or double decking the viaduct with the associated total reconstruction of Oxford Road station.

B&I · 3 Jun 2018

HSTEd said:
Well Picc-Vicc was concieved, fundamentally, as a tube line. Many of the artists impressions even use deep tube stock.

The point is, Picadilly Gardens is by far the largest largely "open" space in central Manchester, and is thus the best place to begin the excavations.
Althouh the platforms are too long to fit entirely in the gardens it would certainly reduce the amount of conventional tunnelling work.
I think you would probably end up with two "layers" of platforms orientated at right angles to one another. An alignment from the vicinity of Salford Central to the lines going south out of Picadilly, and one going to the lines from Leeds through to Warrington (and the other lines would be sorted into one of the two categories as appropriate)

Wasn't there a variation on Picc-Vic which envisaged 2 crosstown lines, 1 from.the CLC lines to the Rochdale line, as well as the original connection from.the Bury and Oldham lines to the Stockport and Styal ones ?

Altfish · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
I would be interested to see the breakdown of final destinations but I guess most people are heading to Manchester not the airport. There would be a same platform change for the Airport at Newton-le-Willows, dependant on decent timings. 2 or 3 coach units are unsuitable and the service fills Mayfield siding most of the time. Extending the CLC stoppers to termimate at Piccadilly would benefit more people and be a better use of paths and the siding.

Even if it is only (say) 15% going to the Airport, it is a lot of people whose journey you are making harder. Of course the Airport Western Link would solve it.
I don't think Mayfield siding occupation is an issue; does anything else use it?

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

Or a slightly less dramatic assessment would be that the new timetable was too ambitious and needs to be dialed back a bit and more of an emphasis on increasing capacity through longer trains. Gotta love another mention of reopening Mayfield. Perhaps you should have suggested converting the Altrincham line back to heavy rail, reopening Central and demolishing the arena to restore Victoria to its former glory... The last thing Manchester needs is another heavy railway station, especially reopening a poorly located overflow station.

The focus since the 1980s has changed but it not a full U turn. The emphasis of current policy is increasing the use of Oxford Road and Victoria for through services similar to Deansgate and Salford Central. There is still a huge focus on making Piccadilly the Manchester station for terminating services e.g. HS2.

HSTEd said:
One way to solve this problem is probably to bite the bullet and find a way of crushing two more running lines between Picadilly and the junction east of Deansgate.
The reconstruction would leave you with 4 platforms at Picadilly and Oxford Road, and probably two platform sat Deansgate, but four lines throughout.

Providing long platforms and then essentially all Picadilly trains could run through and terminate to the west of the city. The Picadilly terminus as it exists now would be slimmed down or essentially abolished.

But it would mean coring a through a lot of the city, or double decking the viaduct with the associated total reconstruction of Oxford Road station.

That is totally unrealistic and unnecessary. The cost would be absurd and would be vastly more than rebuilding multiple junctions, Oxford Road and build Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16. 4 tracking the Castlefield corridor or building Picc-Vic are not going to happen. Funny how easy it is for a discussion about building 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly has become a nostalgia and fantasy thread.

B&I · 3 Jun 2018

edwin_m said:
The link from Wikipedia that has that impression also states:

https://www.theguardian.com/theguar...ster-underground-piccadilly-victoria-picc-vic
Possible that Bury and Altrincham could be taken out of the national network, as later happened under Metrolink, but I can't see this ever happening for Wilmslow. I've never seen any suggestion that it was anything other than a connection of suburban lines remaining part of the BR network. So I suggest the artist's impression was borrowed from some project in London, or just plain wrong.

From what I have read, I got the impression that the proposed system for Manchester was a heavy rail S Bahn, very similar to Merseyrail. I also have a vague memory that PEP stock was intended

HSTEd · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
That is totally unrealistic and unnecessary. The cost would be absurd and would be vastly more than rebuilding multiple junctions, Oxford Road and build Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16. 4 tracking the Castlefield corridor or building Picc-Vic are not going to happen. Funny how easy it is for a discussion about building 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly has become a nostalgia and fantasy thread.

Rebuilding junctions can't overcome the fundamental limitations of a two track alignment.
We will never get more than ~20 trains per hour through, especially with all the random freight being shoved through as well.

If you want more than that, and we need more than that for an actually efficient rail settup in Manchester.... then yeah

Underground is probably cheaper though.

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

Altfish said:
Even if it is only (say) 15% going to the Airport, it is a lot of people whose journey you are making harder. Of course the Airport Western Link would solve it.
I don't think Mayfield siding occupation is an issue; does anything else use it?

A well timed connection at Newton-le-Willows would offset the loss of connections to the Airport at Piccadilly. The ATW service occupies the siding for majority of each hour while both CLC services could use it because of shorter turnsrounds (e.g. 20 minutes each). Running CLC stoppers past Piccadilly would be a waste of DMUs, so if platform 5 at Oxford Road is removed to extend platforms 1-4 then Mayfield sidings would be the best place to reliably turn them around.

Bletchleyite · 3 Jun 2018

B&I said:
From what I have read, I got the impression that the proposed system for.Manchester was a heavy rail S Bahn, very similar to Merseyrail. I also jave a vague memory that PEP stock was intended

I believe so, yes. Essentially it was going to be the same as Metrolink (in any meaningful sense) but without the street running and as heavy rail. I similarly suspect 3-car PEP EMUs would have been used the same as Merseyrail.

MarkyT · 3 Jun 2018

HSTEd said:
Rebuilding junctions can't overcome the fundamental limitations of a two track alignment.
We will never get more than ~20 trains per hour through, especially with all the random freight being shoved through as well.
If you want more than that, and we need more than that for an actually efficient rail settup in Manchester.... then yeah
Underground is probably cheaper though.

Actually, as is usual on busy urban corridors, station reoccupation is the dominant factor, which was the main case for the extra platforms in the first place. Even with conventional signalling, non-stop following headway can easily exceed 20tph, but the stations couldn't handle that unless they have more than one platform per direction, or as on Thameslink, engineers add many more block sections using ETCS, particularly in the vicinity of stations so the next train can start entering a platform before the previous one has fully vacated it. Even then, the presence of complicated throat junctions at Piccadilly really favours the additional platforms anyway, particularly in the up direction, as a train can be held briefly for a path across the junctions without delaying the arrival of the following train.

Chester1 · 3 Jun 2018

More importantly there is currently no need for 20tph let alone anything more.

HSTEd · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
More importantly there is currently no need for 20tph let alone anything more.

There seem to be a lot of trains terminating, and sitting for a long time, in a big terminus in the centre of Manchester.
Which means we are short of through train capacity.

Turning trains back on the outskirts of Manchester would be much cheaper as it would allow Piccadilly station to be redeveloped.

TBirdFrank · 3 Jun 2018

Head in hands ......... but people want to go to Manchester - not the outskirts!

Mayfield has six platform faces capable of taking through traffic plus 13 + 14

Putting four faces into the space between Rail House and the train shed and you get - 4 + 12 + 2 + 6 = 24 platform faces at Piccadilly.

Use the network to remove the critical reliance on Windsor Link to Ardwick instead of relying more and more on it!

Ianno87 · 3 Jun 2018

Chester1 said:
More importantly there is currently no need for 20tph let alone anything more.

It depends what the driver is:
-If it's capacity to move people, then we don't need more trains, just longer ones
-If its frequency to stimulate travel for growth and development, or to run more cross-city services to connect people to jobs, then we do need frequency

transmanche · 3 Jun 2018

HSTEd said:
There seem to be a lot of trains terminating, and sitting for a long time, in a big terminus in the centre of Manchester. Which means we are short of through train capacity.

Turning trains back on the outskirts of Manchester would be much cheaper as it would allow Piccadilly station to be redeveloped.

TBirdFrank said:
Head in hands ......... but people want to go to Manchester - not the outskirts!

I read it that @HSTEd was suggesting that trains should run through Manchester to terminate 'on the outskirts' on the other side, instead of terminating them at Piccadilly. Not that they should be terminated 'on the outskirts' short of the City Centre.

Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member