jonesy3001
Established Member
He probably put it in the shredder the minute he cancelled the project
Quite. From TfGM's Strategic Rail Review Briefing, September 2017:
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/2349/item_8_strategic_rail_briefing
Hardly "not interested"!
Is there any date by when has to make or decline the order?
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.'Concerned' ! Oh no ! Now they've got me scared, said no-one ever.
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.
He will reject the order the day of the general election, to ensure that a possible labour replacement can't approve it.
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 do formally do so he needs to reject the order.
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.
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......... 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?
!
I can't even
And the track layout is already down up down up.
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.
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.
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.... 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?
Platform reoccupation time...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.View attachment 50188
A good illustration of the crowding problem, just part of the justification for the expansion project.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!
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?
="MarkyT, post: 3567642, member: 15097"
A good illustration of the crowding problem, just part of the justification for the expansion project.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
View attachment 50198
There used to be an entrance directly off Fairfield Street, I think it's now an emergency exit.Sorry for the filthy remark but would there be any possible benefits of going down with regards to Platform 13/14, creating a further entrance to this part of the station.
There used to be an entrance directly off Fairfield Street, I think it's now an emergency exit.