jonesy3001
Established Member
He probably put it in the shredder the minute he cancelled the project
-
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!
Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nope. Best practice is "within three months", current practice is six months to a year.
Which makes the 30 month delay even more suspicious; he probably wants to cancel it, but to formally do so he needs to reject the order.
Last edited:
Greybeard33
Established Member
In the unemotional, objective language a TfGM officer is expected to use in such reports, "We are very concerned..." is really extreme. About as close as she dared get to "Grayling must go!" It is for the Mayor and GMCA council leaders to take up the political cudgels.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,701
He will reject the order the day of the general election, to ensure that a possible labour replacement can't approve it.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
He is more likely to approve it just before an election; if they win it was cheap votes, if they lose someone else pays.
As Bernard Woolley once said, "controversial" only means "this will lose you votes", and "courageous" means "this will lose you the election".
Rejected TWAOs can be judicially reviewed, but given TfL got nowhere with challenging Grayling's decision not to devolve Southeastern metro whilst armed with his 2013 letter to Boris about keeping the commuter services "out of the clutches of a Labour mayor", I doubt this'd go anywhere either.
Killingworth
Established Member
Compare time taken for Werrington, a much simpler project, but clearly a quick win. When the time being taken for a decision on the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme was being questioned we were fed the 6 months line. That's an average, including simple siding extentions.
Whatever, I can report from Platforms 13 and 14 today having sampled TPE services to the Lakes. Outbound only a couple of minutes late (lots of standees as far as Penrith at least) but saw freight trains pass in both directions. How can they be diverted? Would SELRAP help, or would that pass the problem to the Leeds area to resolve?
On our return we were held in a queue which our train manager described as 'usual' arriving 13 minutes late after stops at every signal including enforced station pauses at Deansgate and Oxford Road.
Platforms 13/14 get to be a scrum of confused travellers as they fall over each other's heavy luggage and seek help in often limited English. Welcome to Manchester!
palmersears
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 1,485
This has infuriated me all week, with the 1700 EMT service from Liverpool South Parkway flying along until Castlefield Junction (often arriving there 3/4 early), before crawling painfully through Deansgate and invariably arriving at Piccadilly at least 5 late.
Very much looking forward to Victoria - Lime Steet service restarting from Monday so I can actually arrive back in Manchester at somewhere close to scheduled arrival time.
The freight trains you mention run between Trafford Park and (I think )Southampton. They travel south via the Styal line to get to Crewe. At present there is no easy alternative route between Trafford Park and Crewe.
4-SUB 4732
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,150
I can't even
And the track layout is already down up down up.
Between Stockport and Slade Lane? Are you mad?
Killingworth
Established Member
Looking at track diagrams I'm not sure there's any other feasible way out of Trafford Park! Currently at least one an hour is planned in each direction, although Felixstowe is more of a destination than Southampton.
Banning freight movements across 13/14 between, say, 07.00 - 19.00 would go down like a lead balloon, but finding another way in and out would seem helpful. Ah, tracks 15 and 16!
Looking at the proposed route it's clear to see how it's hard to be convinced the scheme will actually fit in the first place, can be constructed in a reasonable time frame, and will be cost effective to provide if confirmed. As Sir Humphrey might have said, a challenging decision.
So why the hell are they not taking up the political cudgels ?
Oh I forgot, it's because Manchester is still largely run by the kind of people who don't like rocking the boat in Westminster and Whitehall in case the derisory level of infrastructure spending it currently enjoys is reduced to non-existent, as is the case for the rest of the north
Last edited:
SELRAP and other schemes might help with some existing or potential flows, but intermodals between Trafford terminals and the south really have no choice but to traverse the city centre line. I suggest a new connecting chord at Warrington with a south facing junction to the WCML to provide an alternative freight route with a new west facing connection to the Trafford terminal yard.
Curve radius approx. 350m. This could also provide a new route for passenger trains between Chester and Manchester Piccadilly via Bank Quay and Glazebrook and allow stopping services on the CLC to be split. Trains from Liverpool via Warrington Central could perhaps turn back at Birchwood (new bay platform or reversing siding). Once CLC expresses are diverted away to a new NPR/HS2 alignment, The Liverpool stoppers could transfer to Merseyrail, extended from Hunts Cross to Birchwood and increased in frequency with South Wales style affordable AC electrification and some batteries on board for powering through short neutral sections at difficult bridges).
Platform reoccupation time...
'Digital railway' techniques can help as on Thameslink, allowing the next arrival to 'close up' further on the train departing in front, even to the extent of starting to enter the platform before it is fully vacated, but a more beneficial solution to also address the crowding and other issues is to provide two tracks and platform faces for each direction at each station and close Deansgate in favour of a new walkway and western access to Oxford Road station with a footbridge connection across Whitworth Street W to the east end of Deansgate-Castleford Metrolink station. At Piccadilly in particular, the twin island layout provides both cross platform interchange and some flexibility for regulating trains across the throat junction without delaying following trains, permitting some pathing allowance to be added to cater for longer and variable dwells.
A good illustration of the crowding problem, just part of the justification for the expansion project.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I wonder if the upgrading of Liverpool Lime Street railway station was seen to offer more plaudits than platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly railway station as a "North West" project?
That is not possible because it would mean the Tories choosing Liverpool over Manchester....
Killingworth
Established Member
The photo attached was taken at a fairly quiet time with no significant delays. When the TPE arrived from the airport those seen waiting started scurrying up and down the platform as they realised they were at the wrong ends for coaches A,B,C or D! They gathered around doorways impeding those trying to get off, most with bulky luggage.
At commuting times, with trains delayed on both platforms, maybe one or two cancelled, but often out of sequence, it's much worse.
Regular users take it for granted, as our train manager implied, but comments overheard from international travellers on our northbound train suggested it was a most unimpressive introduction to Britain.
Standing from Piccadilly north was another issue. Partially because there weren't enough seats, but also because travellers had nowhere to stow those massive bags they drag round the globe, so wouldn't leave them as they stood in doorways.
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,701
This project is not really worth it for four paths per hour in each direction is it?
So unless its combined with a grade seperation at Castlefield Junction I can't see the scheme ever going forward.
So unless its combined with a grade seperation at Castlefield Junction I can't see the scheme ever going forward.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
I would say you are both right and wrong! The reality is that the route through Oxford Road now needs to support a high level of traffic to meet the wide variety of demands being placed on the local network. The lack of any margin in track capacity actually stretches all the way from Ordsall Lane Jn to Adswood Road Jn and any solutions ought to consider the whole of this route. Otherwise any solution provided in isolation merely shifts the problem from one location to another.
Mention has been made of the aborted South Manchester Resignalling Scheme: this would have paired the tracks by use all the way from Piccadilly to Stockport but would have created the problem of how to serve Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel stations as well as removing the current convenience for passengers at Stockport of all Manchester trains departing from the same island. And it did nothing useful for the Edgeley area. As an aside and for clarity I would add that while it was indeed a victim of the need to contain costs on WCRM its cancellation became almost inevitable when it became clear that the contractor, Ansaldo, was unable to get its kit to interface with other modern systems thereby guaranteeing the longer term survival of so many older signal boxes nearby.
My ideal solution, as well as Platforms 15 & 16, would be for grade separation of *all* of Ordsall Lane, Slade Lane and Edgeley No.1 junctions retaining the current pairings of tracks. But it seems that such constructions are severely lacking in political "sexiness" meaning that decisions to build (or not) are down solely to pure number crunching with little consideration of wider network benefits and an aversion to spending large sums on what is perceived to be just concrete. Perhaps all concerned need to visit Utrecht to see how the Dutch converted a node of 6 double-track routes with flat junctions to the largely grade-separated complex of mostly four-track routes that now exists.
I don't think that reducing platform reoccupation times would help that much really. The mid-platform signals already help to a certain extent (the last signal in rear of the platform can clear for a second train to approach the mid-platform signal pretty much as soon as the first starts moving), but it's the dwell times themselves that seem to cause most of the problems - especially when a late-running through train (usually for the Airport) is terminated early, leading to a long dwell time whilst it's detrained and then delays to subsequent trains whilst they board the next Airport train(s) with all their luggage and get in the way of others boarding/alighting intervening trains. Obviously the latter scenario doesn't affect the planned capacity, but it's happening several times a day in reality at the moment and is compounding the well-publicised problems. As you suggest, an additional pair of platforms would be much more beneficial - it's not just about those extra four paths an hour, but also about greater flexibility and reliability.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
We've been thinking about trains, paths, if four more an hour is worth it and so on but less about the conditions for passengers on Pl 13/14. These need amelioration even aside from line capacity. I suppose in theory you could move the Pl14 line outwards on new viaduct and widen the island platform, but that would be really silly. Even if capacity is not the issue the conditions are dreadful at times.
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 4,987
One temporary quick-fix solution suggested is an expansion of the satellite lounge currently used to 'hold' passengers prior to them descending down onto P13/P14. The WHSmiths and Costa take up a fair amount of space and certainly one or both of them could reduce in size. Expanding the lounge via a deck over the platform and redesigning the steps down would double the size and open up more holding space for passengers. A key priority for NR should be the removal of the roof over P13/14 - (especially the west end) and replace it with a lightweight, brighter design.
The reluctance to do any major works seems related to uncertainty about the future - ie P15/16 may get built so don't spend anything - and this has gone on for 4 years now.
The reluctance to do any major works seems related to uncertainty about the future - ie P15/16 may get built so don't spend anything - and this has gone on for 4 years now.
My fear is that 16tph with four platforms wouldn't be any better than 12tph with two platforms because the knock on affect of 4tph crossing flat junctions.
I would go even further than that and extend the satellite lounge platform all the way to the station concourse with 11 and 12 underneath. This would enable facilities such as a large top floor heated waiting space and inevitabily more retail, food and drink units. It would move and rebalance the station facilities to reflect that platforms 13 and 14 are nearly as important as the rest put together. Regardless of whether 15 and 16 are built there needs to be something done and besides its probably not a good idea to have any facilities on them because it would just increase the likelihood of future overcrowding. A new transparent roof for the platform 13/14 island would be a good idea, replacing the top layer of concrete floor and repainting everything.
Last edited:
Interesting thought. Although as today is the last day of the final phase of Lime Street's upgrading and it sits on the lower end of page 2 of this forum's chatter list, versus this not even yet happening project being top of the pops, might suggest that if it was plaudits the DfT were interested in the answer would be a no.
As I observed a number of months back, Lime Street's minor spend/project being billed as the station's biggest upgrade since the 19th century surely means it was due something, especially being partly funded by city deal? Manchester's stations have had hundreds of millions spent on them over recent years, with more to come. The city must have one of the highest spends per head in the country for transport.
Do you have any intelligence to suggest that the DfT were making a binary choice between spending on Manchester Piccadilly versus Liverpool Lime Street? Lime Street is getting a pittance, so I hope it isn't resented.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
The irony people are suggesting things like alternative entrance, more capacity for freight and expanding the satellite lounge. All elements of the 15/16 design...….
Greybeard33
Established Member
The original Manchester Hub study did consider a western exit from Trafford Park to the WCML, either by a chord at Dallam as you suggest or by a new link from the CLC at Glazebrook to the Chat Moss near Kenyon. But it concluded there was no business case, because the P15+16 option could provide an additional hourly freight path through Piccadilly with a better overall BCR.
I think your proposal would be very costly. Not only because of the property demolition necessary to construct the new chord, as is evident from the satellite image. But also the disused freight alignment from Padgate to Dallam has been compromised by construction of the A574 Birchwood Way, and embankments and overbridges have been removed in several places. Plus the CLC between Padgate and Trafford Park would have to be cleared to W12 loading gauge.
There used to be an entrance directly off Fairfield Street, I think it's now an emergency exit.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed. ISTR it used to contain quite an interesting BR-era mural.
Killingworth
Established Member
I came late to this thread and have been searching to find a link to the proposals and submissions to the public inquiry. (Thanks to a community interest I have a large box full of the various cases and plans submitted to the Hope Valley inquiry. It was all online but has now been taken off - or is no longer linked.) Are they anywhere to be found online for Platforms 15 and 16?
- Status