Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

Greybeard33 · 26 Jul 2018

Killingworth said:
I attended 3 rounds of public consultation about the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme and also the public inquiry and have masses of paper produced in support of all of them. I note that documentary evidence is absent regarding where the extra service would start and finish.

The question was asked more than once and the answer was always evasive. Network Rail is tasked by the DfT to provide extra paths and capacity. When they exist it's someone else's job to decide whether to run any extra services, on what routes and by who.

However, suggestions were made of likely start and finish points. Simple Piccadilly to Sheffield wasn't the assumption and the question has been asked of TOCs since.

It's easy enough to suggest places but capacity on tracks to go west of Manchester is only part of the issue. Platform capacity for terminating trains is another. We know turn round times are critical to operate reliable services.

In my previous post I mentioned Chester, Blackpool and Liverpool as possible destinations. More recently Liverpool is the place I've heard suggested most often, always verbally.

On the east side destinations such as Leeds, Hull, Lincoln and Leicester were suggested. 3 of these could fit with existing Northern services.

But first we need to get started on this modest scheme which was being planned at least 15 years ago. The time it's taken doesn't auger well for completion of Platforms 15 and 16.

Resolve one bottleneck and it's inevitable we'll move the problem down the line.

Without P15 & P16 it would certainly be problematic to route an additional Sheffield service through Piccadilly. The services already planned take up all the available paths through P13/P14, so it would have to be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul". If Liverpool were to be the western terminus, for instance, I suppose one option might be to split the Liverpool to Airport via Warrington service at Piccadilly, with the through service rerouted to Sheffield and a replacement shuttle between Piccadilly and the Airport. But the two semi-fasts on the CLC line have to be evenly spaced 30 minutes apart to leave gaps for the stoppers, whereas I doubt that it would be feasible to have the same spacing between the new service and the Nottingham/Norwich through the Hope Valley. It would also be difficult to find suitable paths through Slade Lane and Stockport.

It might be easier to route the new Sheffield service via Marple, rather than Stockport, terminating in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly. Some terminal platform capacity has been released by rerouting TPE services around the Ordsall Chord, but on the other hand there are the additional planned Northern services to Greenbank and Hazel Grove that will terminate in the Piccadilly bays, as well as the second hourly service to Buxton that started in May.

RailUK Forums

Killingworth · 26 Jul 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Without P15 & P16 it would certainly be problematic to route an additional Sheffield service through Piccadilly.

The original Hope Valley Capacity Scheme was to provide for 4 fast trains an hour between Sheffield and Manchester. That was watered down to 3 at the second round of public consultations. It has gone very quiet since the TWAO was confirmed in February and a statement from Network Rail that work should start in 2019.

Currently lack of peak hour capacity is an issue. Providing 6 coach TPE 185s from later in the year may help with that, but those that already run can have standees between Piccadilly and Dore & Totley. East Midlands lack of rolling stock makes the provision of even 4 coach trains problematic, contributing to the TPE overcrowding.

Platforms 15 and 16 were all part of the grander Manchester Hub idea. It might be possible to take a Sheffield - Liverpool service round via Victoria, but that wouldn't be very fast and probably just move congestion elsewhere. It would also make the desired provision of 3 fast services an hour confusing if 2 went from Piccadilly and one from Victoria - with a slow stopping service via New Mills Central.

Adding more carriages isn't as simple as it seems either. Some Piccadilly platforms can already be holding 3 short trains which must be an operational nightmare. It certainly is confusing for passengers. Across the nation more platform extentions will be needed to take longer trains. In the Hope Valley Hathersage westbound only takes 3 cars, but 4 are worked at least once most days by Northern - 2 are locked out until Bamford. Dore & Totley should, HVCS permitting, be extended from 4 to 6 but 6 already call at least twice a day using SDO. Dwell time for these trains is consistently 2 or 3 minutes against 1 minute allowed. Making those trains 9 cars long would be - interesting.

Knock on effects are all around us. Problematic it certainly is. We need a Manchester Crossrail, then for Leeds and Sheffield.

Bletchleyite · 26 Jul 2018

Killingworth said:
Knock on effects are all around us. Problematic it certainly is. We need a Manchester Crossrail, then for Leeds and Sheffield.

A programme of extending all mainline[1] platforms to at least 160m and of further rolling stock purchase would be a lot cheaper and bring more immediate benefit.

[1] No point on the likes of Ormskirk-Preston, but on the branches 100m would probably be sensible so as to allow for 4 x 24m DMU.

Camden · 26 Jul 2018

Bletchleyite said:
A programme of extending all mainline[1] platforms to at least 160m and of further rolling stock purchase would be a lot cheaper and bring more immediate benefit.

[1] No point on the likes of Ormskirk-Preston, but on the branches 100m would probably be sensible so as to allow for 4 x 24m DMU.

Merseyrail are potentially 6/8 x whatever - if it's about what's most efficient, then finishing the network off by integrating straggly lines like Ormskirk Preston would help in that.

4-SUB 4732 · 26 Jul 2018

Doesn’t appear to be any need to knock down houses between Cheadle and Edgeley to get the four tracks down; would be a remarkably good thing to do all told. Everything off the Altrincham and Crewe sides runs through Piccadilly with the Airport stuff; everything from Stoke terminates in the shed.

Diesel stuff from Chester and Greenbank goes on to Warrington Central and Lime Street; electric stuff from Airport and Crewe goes over Chat Moss or up through Bolton. Southport and Clitheroe tat starts at Victoria.

Bletchleyite · 26 Jul 2018

Camden said:
Merseyrail are potentially 6/8 x whatever - if it's about what's most efficient, then finishing the network off by integrating straggly lines like Ormskirk Preston would help in that.

If Merseyrail was ever extended through to Preston I would imagine the stations will all be completely rebuilt to modern specification, it won't just be a case of whack the third rail down on the existing rusting jointed track on rotting sleepers, it'll be a complete line rebuild and probably redoubling along the lines of Chiltern to Oxford.

Same with the proposal to extend Kirkby-Skem, run Skem-Wigan and mothball the direct line (except maybe for freight) - it'll be substantially new build.

LOL The Irony · 26 Jul 2018

4-SUB 4732 said:
Diesel stuff from Chester and Greenbank goes on to Warrington Central and Lime Street;

I don't see any point in that when they A) are going to share the same pool as Buxton and B) don't go through 13 & 14.

4-SUB 4732 · 26 Jul 2018

LOL The Irony said:
I don't see any point in that when they A) are going to share the same pool as Buxton and B) don't go through 13 & 14.

The suggestion being that the stuff from Crewe and Altrincham, in tandem with amending the track between Slade Lane and Stockport (Down, Up, Down, Up) would mean no conflicting moves; makes it very sensible.

Xenophon PCDGS · 26 Jul 2018

Bletchleyite said:
If Merseyrail was ever extended through to Preston I would imagine the stations will all be completely rebuilt to modern specification, it won't just be a case of whack the third rail down on the existing rusting jointed track on rotting sleepers, it'll be a complete line rebuild and probably redoubling along the lines of Chiltern to Oxford.

From recent events, how likely do you suppose it will be (and when) that particular 3rd rail extension will see the light of day?

LOL The Irony · 26 Jul 2018

4-SUB 4732 said:
The suggestion being that the stuff from Crewe and Altrincham, in tandem with amending the track between Slade Lane and Stockport (Down, Up, Down, Up) would mean no conflicting moves; makes it very sensible.

I can't even :lol:

And the track layout is already down up down up.

Overspeed110 · 26 Jul 2018

LOL The Irony said:
I can't even
And the track layout is already down up down up.

Very happy to tell you that you're wrong

Greybeard33 · 26 Jul 2018

Killingworth said:
Platforms 15 and 16 were all part of the grander Manchester Hub idea. It might be possible to take a Sheffield - Liverpool service round via Victoria, but that wouldn't be very fast and probably just move congestion elsewhere. It would also make the desired provision of 3 fast services an hour confusing if 2 went from Piccadilly and one from Victoria - with a slow stopping service via New Mills Central.

Indeed. On the original proposed schedule, P15 & P16 would have been completed for the December 2018 timetable change!

I do not think a service from Sheffield to Manchester Victoria could be described as "fast". The possible routes are via Marple and Philips Park, or via Stockport, Denton and Ashton Moss (probably even slower, but with interchange options at Stockport). Also, as you say, paths/platform capacity through Victoria would probably be an issue.

LOL The Irony · 26 Jul 2018

Overspeed110 said:
Very happy to tell you that you're wrong

Oh. Is Slade Lane the Airport junction?

Overspeed110 · 26 Jul 2018

LOL The Irony said:
Oh. Is Slade Lane the Airport junction?

You commented that the track layout between slade lane jn and Stockport is down up down up.

It isn't.

Greybeard33 · 26 Jul 2018

4-SUB 4732 said:
Doesn’t appear to be any need to knock down houses between Cheadle and Edgeley to get the four tracks down; would be a remarkably good thing to do all told. Everything off the Altrincham and Crewe sides runs through Piccadilly with the Airport stuff; everything from Stoke terminates in the shed.

Diesel stuff from Chester and Greenbank goes on to Warrington Central and Lime Street; electric stuff from Airport and Crewe goes over Chat Moss or up through Bolton. Southport and Clitheroe tat starts at Victoria.

Do you know the area, or are you just looking at satellite images? What would you estimate would be the cost of building an additional two-track viaduct across the Ladybrook Valley, alongside the existing listed structure?

Where do you propose sending the South Wales service after it runs through Piccadilly?

Bletchleyite · 26 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
From recent events, how likely do you suppose it will be (and when) that particular 3rd rail extension will see the light of day?

Never. If it happens I reckon it'll either be battery or OHLE, if the latter it will probably be relatively cheap to do as like Windermere it could just be powered off the WCML wires.

LOL The Irony · 26 Jul 2018

Overspeed110 said:
You commented that the track layout between slade lane jn and Stockport is down up down up.

It isn't.

Oh yeah it's down down up up.

Joseph_Locke · 26 Jul 2018

LOL The Irony said:
Oh. Is Slade Lane the Airport junction?

No, that's Heald Green West (and Heald Green North & South). Slade Lane is the Styal Line / WCML junction ...

Overspeed110 · 26 Jul 2018

Killingworth said:
The original Hope Valley Capacity Scheme was to provide for 4 fast trains an hour between Sheffield and Manchester. That was watered down to 3 at the second round of public consultations. It has gone very quiet since the TWAO was confirmed in February and a statement from Network Rail that work should start in 2019..

With regard to the Hope Valley improvements, recently NR have installed a new drain that runs underneath the overbridge next to Dore station, the positioning of which would seem to suggest they aren't planning on putting another track through there anytime soon?

snowball · 26 Jul 2018

Overspeed110 said:
With regard to the Hope Valley improvements, recently NR have installed a new drain that runs underneath the overbridge next to Dore station, the positioning of which would seem to suggest they aren't planning on putting another track through there anytime soon?

Well, there's an extra track through the station:

From the summary to the environmental statement:

1.2.3 The Dore Package consists of two main elements of work. The first consists of the proposed extension of the Dore South Curve, which involves the construction of a short length of additional track next to the existing Hope Valley Line close to Poynton Wood. This will allow 520m length freight trains to park up on a temporary basis so that express passenger services can pass. The second area of work consists of capacity improvements at Dore and Totley Station (“Dore Station”), including the creation of a second track through the Station and a new platform, bridge and associated works, such as waiting shelters. These permanent works will be supported by a variety of temporary works

Edit: later on in the same document it says:

3.2.4 The permanent works associated with the Dore Package include:
 extension of the Dore South Curve, involving the introduction of approximately 500m of new track next to the Manchester-bound section of the Hope Valley Line between Dore West Junction and West View Lane. This will require the excavation of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 m³ of material from the existing cutting slope within part of Poynton Wood;
 doubling of the track between Dore West Junction and Dore Station;
 construction of a second platform, new footbridge and lifts at Dore Station;
 extension to the existing platform at Dore Station; and
 the replacement of under bridge DWS/1, which is located between Dore Station and Dore West Junction.

Overspeed110 · 26 Jul 2018

snowball said:
Well, there's an extra track through the station:

From the summary to the environmental statement:

Edit: later on in the same document it says:

Yes, I'm aware of what's planned, the point being that this drain (the type you usually see in the cess with 3'x2' rectangular blue plastic mesh type covers / vents) looks to me as I drove through there yesterday to be foul of where the new line would go. So either NR have wasted a load of money (no surprise there) because they will have to reposition the new drain before any new track is laid or they've already decided the improvements aren't going to happen.

Mollman · 26 Jul 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Indeed. On the original proposed schedule, P15 & P16 would have been completed for the December 2018 timetable change!

I do not think a service from Sheffield to Manchester Victoria could be described as "fast". The possible routes are via Marple and Philips Park, or via Stockport, Denton and Ashton Moss (probably even slower, but with interchange options at Stockport). Also, as you say, paths/platform capacity through Victoria would probably be an issue.

I think the original Northern Hub plan also had the Norwich - Liverpool service going via Victoria using the Marple line. It was sensibly dropped!

Allwinter_Kit · 26 Jul 2018

An interesting problem now is the horrible overcrowding on Platform 13/14. It simply can't take the number of people - and the NR staff shouting at everyone to 'move down' and 'stay behind the yellow line' along with the delays and cancellations (and the heat, admittedly) make it a pretty unpleasant wait for the train. And then when 3 cars of Northern or TPX finally arrive everyone is incredibly spread down the platform away from the train and so has to shuffle back up whilst the platforms are just too busy to let people off easily at peak times...

....this can't now be the norm, surely? It sure as hell is offputting - makes the train that much more unpleasant a choice.

Killingworth · 26 Jul 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Indeed. On the original proposed schedule, P15 & P16 would have been completed for the December 2018 timetable change!

Curiously, or not, the planned completion date of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme.

Beginning to look ominous for both. Interestingly the inspector at the HVCS public inquiry found against it thanks to a fairly minor objection by the national oil pipeline operators - but they spoiled it by withdrawing their objections!

Platforms 13 and 14 are indeed unpleasant. I'll be using them tomorrow.

Northern Powerhouse or Hub, we saw so many announcements but now see so little action. Aren't TfGM making a fuss?

HSTEd · 26 Jul 2018

Well if you built the two additional through platforms you could sell the existing concourse or whatnot for redevelopment and move the concourse into the current main trainshed since most of the platforms there would be obsolete.
Especially if you ran a lot of trains that would terminate in the trainshed through to some position West of Manchester.

B&I · 26 Jul 2018

Killingworth said:
Curiously, or not, the planned completion date of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme.

Beginning to look ominous for both. Interestingly the inspector at the HVCS public inquiry found against it thanks to a fairly minor objection by the national oil pipeline operators - but they spoiled it by withdrawing their objections!

Platforms 13 and 14 are indeed unpleasant. I'll be using them tomorrow.

Northern Powerhouse or Hub, we saw so many announcements but now see so little action. Aren't TfGM making a fuss?

A flow diagram.

Q. Does the question relate to something other than trams ?

Or alternatively,

Q. Does the question relate to something which travels through Manchester but enables travel to anywhere other than London ?

If the answer to either of the above is 'yes', then no, TfGM are not interested.

Greybeard33 · 27 Jul 2018

HSTEd said:
Well if you built the two additional through platforms you could sell the existing concourse or whatnot for redevelopment and move the concourse into the current main trainshed since most of the platforms there would be obsolete.
Especially if you ran a lot of trains that would terminate in the trainshed through to some position West of Manchester.

Platform 15 and 16, together with the Oxford Road remodelling, were stated to provide capacity for an additional four through trains per hour per direction. The capacity constraint then becomes Castlefield Junction.

The current Working Timetable has about 22tph terminating in the main shed off-peak, probably increasing by 2tph next year. The extra through capacity would provide some scope to reduce platform multiple occupancy, enabling increases in train lengths, but would not make any platforms obsolete.

Sceptre · 27 Jul 2018

B&I said:
A flow diagram.

Q. Does the question relate to something other than trams ?

Or alternatively,

Q. Does the question relate to something which travels through Manchester but enables travel to anywhere other than London ?

If the answer to either of the above is 'yes', then no, TfGM are not interested.

To be fair to TfGM, they have been incredibly frustrated at rail problems in Manchester recently, but, at least when it comes to Platform 15 and 16, there's literally nothing they can do until Chris Grayling makes the TWAO order.

Greybeard33 · 27 Jul 2018

Sceptre said:
To be fair to TfGM, they have been incredibly frustrated at rail problems in Manchester recently, but, at least when it comes to Platform 15 and 16, there's literally nothing they can do until Chris Grayling makes the TWAO order.

Quite. From TfGM's Strategic Rail Review Briefing, September 2017:

4.3 As part of the original Northern Hub proposal, significant infrastructure investment was committed that would see two additional platforms built at the station alongside enhancements made to the rail routes across the north.
4.4 We are very concerned about the ongoing uncertainty associated with the scheme and what the recent announcements indicate, this central Manchester rail corridor is the busiest in Greater Manchester and a key route for services across the north.
4.5 Piccadilly’s platforms 13 and 14 are congested today and passengers often suffer delays due to overcrowding.
4.6 We must ensure that Piccadilly Station is sufficiently futureproofed, not just for today’s passengers but a future generation where HS2 and Northern Powerhouse services convene.
4.7 We will actively work with Government and Network Rail to ensure that future solutions and developments deliver increased opportunity to operate more and longer trains, providing greater customer capacity and regional connectivity.

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/2349/item_8_strategic_rail_briefing

Hardly "not interested"!

dggar · 27 Jul 2018

Sceptre said:
To be fair to TfGM, they have been incredibly frustrated at rail problems in Manchester recently, but, at least when it comes to Platform 15 and 16, there's literally nothing they can do until Chris Grayling makes the TWAO order.

Is there any date by when has to make or decline the order?

Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member