Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

B&I · 31 Aug 2018

Bletchleyite said:
You'd need to recast the service so the same principles could be applied as Thameslink - basically a massive simplification which would turn the service into something a lot more like Merseyrail or Thameslink than what is there now. It could be done but there would be a *lot* of complaints.

You'd probably have to do something like the following:-
- All services formed of classes 319, 323, 185 or 150 (or ATW CAF stock)
- A significant capacity increase to reduce overcrowding which causes much of the delay - minimum train length to be 69m i.e. 3x23m, peak trains to be a minimum of 80m i.e. 4x20m
- A total ban on classes 14x, 153, 155, 156, 158, 802, the new TPE EMUs and Mk5 LHCS due to slow loading and unloading
- The ATW service to be diverted to Victoria until the doors-at-thirds CAF stock arrives
- TPE Scottish service to run to Victoria once the 350s go
- Use doubled Class 185s on the TPE service which uses Ordsall rather than 800s/LHCS
- A complete rejig of depots and/or the service such that no changes of traincrew occur in Manchester
- Improved PIS so people can see from all points on the platform which train is next, its formation (in relation to platform locations) and any other relevant information.

That might make it just about workable give or take freight.

Presumably this would require removing most / all long-distance services from Castelfields completely. But for every step taken forward in that direction (shifting all Liverpool TPE services to Victoria), another step is taken back (providing the world.and his wife with a via Castlefields service to the airport).

How to sort this mess out ? Once.upon a time, when Victoria carried virtually all east-west services anyway, I suppose it would have involved maintaining that and using Picc-Vic to maintain connections between it, southern-bound.long distance services from Piccadilly, and across the city more generally. Now, I wonder whether it might be time to examine whether an east-west through high speed tunnel would do more for transport capacity across the north than a southbound one terminating at Piccadilly

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

B&I said:
How to sort this mess out ?

Build Platforms 15 and 16, allowing trains to have longer dwell times at Picc without affecting others (if the other one is ready to go, just send it out in front and free the platform up) and solving the issue of long-distance services. It's dwell time that is causing the issue and is the only key difference on a low-speed corridor from local services. And do it before someone puts a block of posh flats in the way.

It is needed so much, and would bring so much benefit, that it amazes me (a) that there's so much debate on it (though debate away, debate is good

), and (b) that just about every other pet project seems to come first.

Is it that nobody likes boring projects that won't add extra services, just make existing ones more punctual?

The one other key change that should be done now is to recast depot route knowledge and through services to stop all non-emergency crew changes between Salford Crescent and Picc inclusive. Have them elsewhere at stations that have fewer services and/or more platforms (e.g. Bolton, the Airport, Stockport) if it *really* isn't feasible for them to be at the termini. It's ridiculous to plan for things that would cause a blockage along there.

LOL The Irony · 31 Aug 2018

Personally, I think someone should bite the bullet and build Picc Vic. I know at least the Arndale station exists.

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

LOL The Irony said:
Personally, I think someone should bite the bullet and build Picc Vic. I know at least the Arndale station exists.

That would relieve Metrolink, but wouldn't really do anything for Castlefield. Personally, if Picc-Vic ever gets built, I would venture the view that it's likely to take the form of a third Metrolink city crossing, a bit like the Haagse Tramtunnel in the Hague, NL.

Castlefield needs P15/16, and P15/16 will solve the vast majority of the issues there (the minor options of rejigging traincrew route knowledge and improved train formation PIS will solve the rest). The mind boggles as to why it wasn't built 20 years ago, as the problem isn't exactly a new one. Though admittedly things were a bit better when 13/14 had permissive working rather than the split signals, as you could bring 3 trains in close to one another so it wasn't far to walk if yours was the back one. The 13/14a/b thing has never worked properly from day one (about 2000, if I recall rightly).

Greybeard33 · 31 Aug 2018

B&I said:
Presumably this would require removing most / all long-distance services from Castelfields completely. But for every step taken forward in that direction (shifting all Liverpool TPE services to Victoria), another step is taken back (providing the world.and his wife with a via Castlefields service to the airport).

How to sort this mess out ? Once.upon a time, when Victoria carried virtually all east-west services anyway, I suppose it would have involved maintaining that and using Picc-Vic to maintain connections between it, southern-bound.long distance services from Piccadilly, and across the city more generally. Now, I wonder whether it might be time to examine whether an east-west through high speed tunnel would do more for transport capacity across the north than a southbound one terminating at Piccadilly

I believe the long term TfGM strategy is to utilise HS2 and NPR infrastructure to get long distance services off the Castlefield corridor, thereby freeing up capacity for metro frequency local services on the Ordsall Chord, Bolton line, Chat Moss line and CLC line. The latest TfGM Local Rail Service Performance and Stations Update, dated 07 September 2018 ,which can be downloaded from https://www.greatermanchester-ca.go...583/metrolink_and_rail_networks_sub-committee, has a Strategy Update section including the following:

13.6 The North West Quadrant Rail Study is now having its brief produced to enable distribution to consultants by the end of June 2018. This study will include a strategic assessment of the potential roles of tram-train/metro on the Atherton line, and options for a Northern Chord from HS2/NPR to relieve the Castlefield corridor for longer distance services along the Bolton line.

The "Northern Chord" would presumably be a east-north chord between the HS2 Manchester spur and the HS2 mainline, branching off the proposed NPR Manchester Airport to Liverpool route via Warrington, to enable trains from Piccadilly to Preston and beyond to be routed via the Airport HS station.

From hints in the TfGM 2040 Strategy report, tram-train/metro on the Atherton line would probably run under the city centre in a new east-west tunnel and be linked to Glossop/Hadfield services.

Senex · 31 Aug 2018

Bletchleyite said:
That would relieve Metrolink, but wouldn't really do anything for Castlefield. Personally, if Picc-Vic ever gets built, I would venture the view that it's likely to take the form of a third Metrolink city crossing, a bit like the Haagse Tramtunnel in the Hague, NL.

It couldn't be Picc-Vic in any case, as the northern end of that was to link into what is now the Metrolink line to Bury (with Bolton being reached via Radcliffe). Which would now be better, an eastern exit into the Calder Valley line or a western exit towards the Bolton line (or, preferably but much more expensively, both)? Or would the money be much spent on getting things right on the MSJ and also restoring the eastern link to Victoria via Ardwick Junction?

Castlefield needs P15/16, and P15/16 will solve the vast majority of the issues there (the minor options of rejigging traincrew route knowledge and improved train formation PIS will solve the rest). The mind boggles as to why it wasn't built 20 years ago, as the problem isn't exactly a new one. Though admittedly things were a bit better when 13/14 had permissive working rather than the split signals, as you could bring 3 trains in close to one another so it wasn't far to walk if yours was the back one. The 13/14a/b thing has never worked properly from day one (about 2000, if I recall rightly).

I'm not well enough up to date on my central Manchester building history, but I wonder if twenty years ago it might still have been much more easily possible to quad the Manchester Stadtbahn, provide the four platforms at Piccadilly for reasons that were fully understood a hundred years ago for the rebuilding of Berlin Freidrichstraße, do the same at Oxford Road, and get the same 60 km/h speed throughout that has long been possible on the much more curvaceous (because it follows the old forticifications) Berlin Stadtbahn.

furnessvale · 31 Aug 2018

a_c_skinner said:
Every so often I travel down a twin track, heavy rail route though a major city. All its stations are two platform. It has complicated junctions and stations at each end yet it, Thameslink, seems to manage more trains per hour than Manchester dreams of. Is simply managing the existing infrastructure more intensively impossible?

How much freight goes through the heart of Thameslink?

Confused52 · 31 Aug 2018

Greybeard33 said:
I believe the long term TfGM strategy is to utilise HS2 and NPR infrastructure to get long distance services off the Castlefield corridor, thereby freeing up capacity for metro frequency local services on the Ordsall Chord, Bolton line, Chat Moss line and CLC line. The latest TfGM Local Rail Service Performance and Stations Update, dated 07 September 2018 ,which can be downloaded from https://www.greatermanchester-ca.go...583/metrolink_and_rail_networks_sub-committee, has a Strategy Update section including the following:

The "Northern Chord" would presumably be a east-north chord between the HS2 Manchester spur and the HS2 mainline, branching off the proposed NPR Manchester Airport to Liverpool route via Warrington, to enable trains from Piccadilly to Preston and beyond to be routed via the Airport HS station.

From hints in the TfGM 2040 Strategy report, tram-train/metro on the Atherton line would probably run under the city centre in a new east-west tunnel and be linked to Glossop/Hadfield services.

The is a document of the National Infrastructure Commission site about the options for Manchester Piccadilly which can be found here: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/u...-Piccadilly-Station-Redevelopment-Options.pdf

It shows two possible locations for the NPR station one in the under-croft below the level of the HS2 station north of the existing train shed and the other sits underneath the existing train shed. The latter would presumable constrain the redevelopment of Mayfield which it appears is necessary to provide funds for the other work and would involve a further junction with HS2 somewhere. Consequently the first option seems more probable with the NPR station box being at the same time at HS2 with tracks to Liverpool being connected essentially within the HS2 Station protected area. It is expected that NPR to Liverpool would use the HS2 line as far as the branch north close to Warrington. To the East the line would need to emerge below ground from the NPR station box and follow the Northern Chord route towards Leeds. (The metrolink also moves)

With the inter-relationship of projects it will be very complex. However the key point is that it supports your supposition that in the long term the services from Leeds and Liverpool will be replaced by NPR services if the plan goes ahead.

I hope that others can tell me where there is newer information.

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

furnessvale said:
How much freight goes through the heart of Thameslink?

True, but it's not the freight that is causing the issue, that pootles through without stopping unless passenger trains get in its way. The problem is being caused by passenger train dwell times, which is caused by a combination of end doors, overcrowding, passenger confusion due to very poor PIS and the ridiculous practice of having crew changes on one of the busiest bits of the network rather than at more suitable stations further out.

The whole thing makes my mind boggle. We've got the money for HS2 and Crossrail (both of which I support) - not to mention East West Rail which is great but however you look at it is only going to be a couple of shortish DMUs' worth each way an hour. But we can't find the far smaller amount of money to buy a chunk of what is presently wasteland and stick up two short sections of viaduct and a 240m island platform with a basic overall shelter of some kind? To me the benefit to cost ratio would outweigh almost any rail project I could think of anywhere else in the UK, and not only that but if you don't do it now someone will build another tower block on said wasteland and that'll be the possibility gone for good.

Furthermore, Northern Powerhouse Rail doesn't remove the need for it, that won't remove all the local services - indeed, with the capacity we could increase the frequencies of those in some of the spare capacity.

It needs building, and it needs building now.

Joseph_Locke · 31 Aug 2018

furnessvale said:
How much freight goes through the heart of Thameslink?

And how mixed is the origin, destination, TOC and rolling stock on the Thameslink core?

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

Joseph_Locke said:
And how mixed is the origin, destination, TOC and rolling stock on the Thameslink core?

The origins and destinations are probably mixed to a very similar extent now the extra ones have been added rather than it just being various permutations of Bedford to Brighton plus the loop. The TOC barely matters. But yes, the Class 700 (and the low-density seated 2+2 wide-aisle Class 319s with extra standing space before them) are designed for quick turnaround.

a_c_skinner · 31 Aug 2018

furnessvale said:
How much freight goes through the heart of Thameslink?

None, as you know; there is one path an hour in Manchester, isn't there? Either way it potters through without stopping.

Joseph_Locke said:
And how mixed is the origin, destination, TOC and rolling stock on the Thameslink core?

London Bridge and Blackfriars at one end and a simpler North end, but certainly not simple.

I'll grant you both these are complications but Thameslink seems to work well at a couple of dozen paths an hour, which is (I think) out of sight from what we seem to manage in Manchester. I take the point that dwell times suffer because of crowding, PIS and so on. It may be that 1/3:2/3 doors would be important too, but even with all this the difference is huge in paths per hour down a two track passenger railway. Others have said that having all the trains four cars would help and that seems achievable (leaving aside Northern's silly short new trains).

furnessvale · 31 Aug 2018

a_c_skinner said:
None, as you know; there is one path an hour in Manchester, isn't there? Either way it potters through without stopping.

Indeed, one freight per hour which even if it is booked non stop must occupy a couple of passenger paths so that is 2 an hour to add to the theoretical throughput of the junction.

Not that I am any fan of how the junction and Stockport are apparently operated. I should think there are a number of locations in the south east which show what can be achieved when you set your mind to it.

mmh · 31 Aug 2018

I'm pretty sure people used to say that London Bridge to Metropolitan Junction (between London Bridge and Waterloo East) was the busiest two track section of railway in the UK or Europe (or perhaps it was the world?) - since quadrupled for Thameslink, though.

I wonder what the busiest platforms at Clapham Junction manage?

keith1879 · 31 Aug 2018

Bletchleyite said:
The problem is being caused by passenger train dwell times, which is caused by a combination of end doors, overcrowding, passenger confusion due to very poor PIS and the ridiculous practice of having crew changes on one of the busiest bits of the network rather than at more suitable stations further out.

Dwell times are no doubt contributing but surely it is far more complex than that. We had more or less the same trains (rather fewer I accept that) making more or less the same journeys carrying more or less the same passengers before the May timetable change. Reliability fell off a cliff and I cannot see that dwell times have suddenly become such an issue. The one big thing that is being experienced everywhere is that Northern's timetable was shafted by Network Rail leaving them unable to provide a reliable service through the Manchester corridor for a whole variety of reasons. You could build platforms 15-20 and have 4 sets of doors on each carriage but if the train from Middlesbrough leaves Leeds 20 minutes late and Northern's rosters are screwed because they can't run the trains they had planned and trained their drivers for then what chance have you got?

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

keith1879 said:
Dwell times are no doubt contributing but surely it is far more complex than that. We had more or less the same trains (rather fewer I accept that) making more or less the same journeys carrying more or less the same passengers before the May timetable change. Reliability fell off a cliff and I cannot see that dwell times have suddenly become such an issue. The one big thing that is being experienced everywhere is that Northern's timetable was shafted by Network Rail leaving them unable to provide a reliable service through the Manchester corridor for a whole variety of reasons. You could build platforms 15-20 and have 4 sets of doors on each carriage but if the train from Middlesbrough leaves Leeds 20 minutes late and Northern's rosters are screwed because they can't run the trains they had planned and trained their drivers for then what chance have you got?

That's a separate issue - other than the crew changes at Picc. Whoever thought that was a good idea wants the sack. There should be no planned activity occurring at 13/14 at all other than a quick doors open, passengers off, passengers on, doors closed, buzz buzz. For 13/14 it doesn't really matter what is late on entering and what isn't - you just need to progress trains through it as quickly as possible in the order they arrived.

keith1879 · 31 Aug 2018

But my experience on those platforms is that the trains aren't arriving until long after they should have left anyway. P13/14 don't make the trains late - they already are late. And then they cock up other trains at other stations and other junctions. I don't disagree with your improvements - but I doubt that they would have had have any more than a marginal effect on some of my recent disastrous journeys. (Well - I know they wouldn't).

Bletchleyite · 31 Aug 2018

keith1879 said:
P13/14 don't make the trains late

Except they do - long dwell times caused by overcrowding and passenger confusion (including running to/from 13a/14b ends) cause trouble in and of themselves. I'm not saying they are the cause of all Northern's ills, of course they aren't. But they do cause a big issue.

Even timetabling trains more time through there won't help, as then an on-time train going into the line first will delay a delayed one further by waiting time. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it'd make them worse.

swt_passenger · 31 Aug 2018

mmh said:
I'm pretty sure people used to say that London Bridge to Metropolitan Junction (between London Bridge and Waterloo East) was the busiest two track section of railway in the UK or Europe (or perhaps it was the world?) - since quadrupled for Thameslink, though.

I wonder what the busiest platforms at Clapham Junction manage?

Varies but as an example around 18 tph on the Southern up fast in the morning peak, which is a mix of stopping and non-stop services. The Southwestern Up main fast achieves more but very few trains stop.

Chester1 · 31 Aug 2018

Bletchleyite said:
You'd need to recast the service so the same principles could be applied as Thameslink - basically a massive simplification which would turn the service into something a lot more like Merseyrail or Thameslink than what is there now. It could be done but there would be a *lot* of complaints.

You'd probably have to do something like the following:-
- All services formed of classes 319, 323, 185 or 150 (or ATW CAF stock)
- A significant capacity increase to reduce overcrowding which causes much of the delay - minimum train length to be 69m i.e. 3x23m, peak trains to be a minimum of 80m i.e. 4x20m
- A total ban on classes 14x, 153, 155, 156, 158, 802, the new TPE EMUs and Mk5 LHCS due to slow loading and unloading
- The ATW service to be diverted to Victoria until the doors-at-thirds CAF stock arrives
- TPE Scottish service to run to Victoria once the 350s go
- Use doubled Class 185s on the TPE service which uses Ordsall rather than 800s/LHCS
- A complete rejig of depots and/or the service such that no changes of traincrew occur in Manchester
- Improved PIS so people can see from all points on the platform which train is next, its formation (in relation to platform locations) and any other relevant information.

That might make it just about workable give or take freight.

MarkyT said:
Indeed, especially as only a small proportion of trains on the corridor stop at Deansgate, while on Thameslink all trains stop at all stations in the core, like a proper metro. Thameslink trains are also all equipped for the very short fixed block ETCS overlay and ATO, which was easy to arrange with a complete new fleet of the same train type, all with the same performance, mostly in tunnel etc. The ATO isn't in full operation yet I understand though, but then the timetable hasn't ramped up to the full peak capacity of 24tph either.

24tph is impossible through Castlefield but perhaps ETCS could significantly improve capacity and reliablity in the the long term. All of TPET and Northerns new units are designed to be upgraded and all 24 of the ETCS W&B 158s are going off lease by 2023. They should be enough to allow Ordsall Chord/Ordsall Lane Junction/Castlefield Junction to Piccadilly to be ETCS, although the range of units and use of end door stock long term is not ideal.

In terms of more immediate changes, there is certainly plenty of room to rationalise services and stock. Swapping Middlesbrough-Airport with Leeds-Piccadilly would mean 185s using the corridor long term and reduce knock on delays. Newcastle is too large a city to stop take an airport service from. A Thameslink style service pattern and removal of long distance services might be a good option but I doubt its politically viable. I suspect 15 and 16 will be built to delay bigger changes needing to be made.

js1000 · 1 Sep 2018

keith1879 said:
P13/14 don't make the trains late - they already are late.

Bletchleyite said:
Except they do - long dwell times caused by overcrowding and passenger confusion (including running to/from 13a/14b ends) cause trouble in and of themselves. I'm not saying they are the cause of all Northern's ills, of course they aren't. But they do cause a big issue.

Even timetabling trains more time through there won't help, as then an on-time train going into the line first will delay a delayed one further by waiting time. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it'd make them worse.

The constraints of 13/14 do make trains late though because of long dwell times.

Said the other week about some passengers who didn't know where they were going were holding up a train from platform 13 to the Airport. It's 45 seconds - which isn't a lot - but if most services are being held up by passengers then it becomes a problem.

Only last night, an East Midlands train to Nottingham, already delayed by 10 minutes. The two rear carriages were not in use, therefore the passengers had to shuffle down the platform wasting another minute. A bloke had about 3 suitcases of stuff, he had to shuffle it all the way down the platform. In the process he forgot one of his bag which he left 30 metres down the platform. It was only the conductor who somehow managed to see the bag and informed him to get it. Another delayed minute for the service, as well as the service to Wilmslow waiting behind it.

Extrapolate those minor delays over the course of the day and it's easy to see why every train is delayed through 13/14. There is absolutely no slack in the TPHs to allow that sort of stuff.

£200 million for a few more TPHs through Piccadilly isn't the contention. Yes, it's bad value for money - I agree. But where it is good value for money is that it gives you is resilience. By having another platform, the minutes lost in dwell times are eliminated and will reduce delays across the north-south artery through Manchester and beyond.

61653 HTAFC · 1 Sep 2018

The obvious question there is why was it necessary for EMT who have an entirely through-gangwayed DMU fleet to lock out the rear two cars? Unless there was a safety-critical fault, that's another example of doing whatever makes life easier for the TOC/crew, and sod the travelling public.

Greybeard33 · 1 Sep 2018

Confused52 said:
The is a document of the National Infrastructure Commission site about the options for Manchester Piccadilly which can be found here: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/u...-Piccadilly-Station-Redevelopment-Options.pdf

It shows two possible locations for the NPR station one in the under-croft below the level of the HS2 station north of the existing train shed and the other sits underneath the existing train shed. The latter would presumable constrain the redevelopment of Mayfield which it appears is necessary to provide funds for the other work and would involve a further junction with HS2 somewhere. Consequently the first option seems more probable with the NPR station box being at the same time at HS2 with tracks to Liverpool being connected essentially within the HS2 Station protected area. It is expected that NPR to Liverpool would use the HS2 line as far as the branch north close to Warrington. To the East the line would need to emerge below ground from the NPR station box and follow the Northern Chord route towards Leeds. (The metrolink also moves)

With the inter-relationship of projects it will be very complex. However the key point is that it supports your supposition that in the long term the services from Leeds and Liverpool will be replaced by NPR services if the plan goes ahead.

I hope that others can tell me where there is newer information.

Thank you for the reminder of the NIC document "Manchester Piccadilly Station Options Assessment". As this was issued in March 2016, it is now somewhat dated. I believe the latest published proposal for the long term redevelopment of the station is Manchester City Council's Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) March 2018 Draft Update, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/6868/manchester_piccadilly_srf_march_2018. This has the NPR platforms underground beneath the HS2 station, with the Metrolink platforms in between, and assumes that the NPR line to Leeds will loop northwards in a tunnel under the city centre.

The responses to the consultation on this draft are summarised in a MCC report of July 2018, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/25493/5_strategic_regeneration_framework_srf_for_manchester_piccadilly_–_update and included:

HS2 Ltd’s response recognised the key design principles for Piccadilly Station within the SRF, but does not comment on the design quality included, only on functional requirements. It stated that the station included in the SRF represents a significant change in the station configuration, compared to HS2’s current design, which would require significant redesign to meet HS2 requirements.

MCC's response to the comments stated:

The overall support provided by TfGM is welcome. TfGM is a key partner and co-author of the Greater Manchester HS2 and NPR Growth Strategy: The Stops are Just the Start for Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport Stations (2018). The SRF and the Growth Strategy both show Greater Manchester’s preferred solution for an NPR underground through station. This, and a overground turnback option on the site of the proposed Boulevard and commercial development, will be subject to a Strategic Outline Business Case. Transport for the North (TfN) is currently preparing the Business Case and the draft will be finalised in September 2018 for consideration by the Department for Transport. Both options are viable and are being assessed for the Business Case.

Regarding the specific topic of this thread, the NIC report was strongly supportive of P15/16 - the Executive Summary stated:

Whilst all these works in Phase 1 [pre-2026] are enablers to the wider regeneration of the Piccadilly Area. The timely completion of the Northern Hub Platforms 15 & 16 works are crucial to the delivery of the Mayfield site regeneration. The delivery of Platforms 15 and 16 earlier than currently proposed will achieve the following critical elements:
• delivery of additional train capacity to service the Mayfield development
• avoidance of significant disruption to the Mayfield side of the station
• provision of a new station entrance to that side.
Overall, the early delivery will help to accelerate the regeneration of Mayfield and realise the commercial benefits sooner. To avoid subsequent disruption, any further proposed resignalling should be brought forward to be completed concurrently with the delivery of Platforms 15 and 16.

The Draft SRF Update assumes that P15/16 will be completed in advance of HS2/NPR - the plan on p75 shows the platforms as part of the Classic station.

dggar · 1 Sep 2018

Bletchleyite said:
That's a separate issue - other than the crew changes at Picc. Whoever thought that was a good idea wants the sack. There should be no planned activity occurring at 13/14 at all other than a quick doors open, passengers off, passengers on, doors closed, buzz buzz. For 13/14 it doesn't really matter what is late on entering and what isn't - you just need to progress trains through it as quickly as possible in the order they arrived.

What crew changes take place at P13/14. I was under the impression that Network Rail did not allow crew changes other than at Oxford Road.

Confused52 · 1 Sep 2018

Greybeard33 said:
Thank you for the reminder of the NIC document "Manchester Piccadilly Station Options Assessment". As this was issued in March 2016, it is now somewhat dated. I believe the latest published proposal for the long term redevelopment of the station is Manchester City Council's Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) March 2018 Draft Update, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/6868/manchester_piccadilly_srf_march_2018. This has the NPR platforms underground beneath the HS2 station, with the Metrolink platforms in between, and assumes that the NPR line to Leeds will loop northwards in a tunnel under the city centre.

The responses to the consultation on this draft are summarised in a MCC report of July 2018, https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/25493/5_strategic_regeneration_framework_srf_for_manchester_piccadilly_–_update and included:

MCC's response to the comments stated:

Regarding the specific topic of this thread, the NIC report was strongly supportive of P15/16 - the Executive Summary stated:

The Draft SRF Update assumes that P15/16 will be completed in advance of HS2/NPR - the plan on p75 shows the platforms as part of the Classic station.

Greybeard, thanks very much for the planning document links. I am also grateful for the implied links for the rest of the city centre SRFs which I am working through. I was pleased that the location of the NPR station is seemingly accepted by all parties at the north end. Fitting the NPR/HS2 junction into the safeguarded land in the HS2 orders and modifying the HS2 station build to accept the NPR and Metrolink station boxes is going to need someone to commit funding. This would appear to dwarf the funding needed for 15/16.

However I am concerned that DfT will be asking what the payback period will be for the new platforms and the effect of NPR will be to reduce the Benefit Cost Ratio for 15/16 by reducing the benefit in later years. One can see that, freight excepted, the Castlefields traffic could become more homogenised and hence amenable to the wonders of ECTS and hence Grayling's Magic Digital Railway. To counter it one would need to generate more local services so limitations elsewhere such on the CLC will need to have a credible chance of allowing the extra traffic generation as NPR services start.

The timing issues are driven by Mayfield as the SRFs show it makes sense for MCC to offer funding for that reason.

Thanks again for the helpful information.

bunnahabhain · 1 Sep 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
The obvious question there is why was it necessary for EMT who have an entirely through-gangwayed DMU fleet to lock out the rear two cars? Unless there was a safety-critical fault, that's another example of doing whatever makes life easier for the TOC/crew, and sod the travelling public.

If it was 1L20, that calls at Hathersage, and to comply with the sectional appendix the rear unit must be locked out of use if calling at Hathersage.

Killingworth · 1 Sep 2018

bunnahabhain said:
If it was 1L20, that calls at Hathersage, and to comply with the sectional appendix the rear unit must be locked out of use if calling at Hathersage.

IL20 was about 12 minutes late last night. Northern 4 coach combinations manage to stop there going east, possibly because Pacers are just short enough to fit. Officially Hathersage seems to be 3 cars. Westbound is shorter and 4 car Northern trains will usually be locked out until Bamford. The monthly folk train may manage to use all 4 going west with special arrangements.

bunnahabhain · 1 Sep 2018

Killingworth said:
IL20 was about 12 minutes late last night. Northern 4 coach combinations manage to stop there going east, possibly because Pacers are just short enough to fit. Officially Hathersage seems to be 3 cars. Westbound is shorter and 4 car Northern trains will usually be locked out until Bamford. The monthly folk train may manage to use all 4 going west with special arrangements.

It's rather prescriptive, unusually so infact for a station.

LNWN9001 said:
HATHERSAGE When an up train booked to call at the station is formed of two or more units which when combined would be greater in length than two Class 142 units, then the rear unit(s) must be locked out of public use. When a down train booked to call at the station is formed of more than one 2-car unit, the rear unit(s) must be locked out of public use. Dated: 17/12/11

Whether I agree with it or not, I have no choice BUT to lock out the rear unit, and it is far easier to do that at the beginning of the journey than at Grindleford or Bamford where it would cause a delay.

Shaw S Hunter · 1 Sep 2018

Confused52 said:
Greybeard, thanks very much for the planning document links. I am also grateful for the implied links for the rest of the city centre SRFs which I am working through. I was pleased that the location of the NPR station is seemingly accepted by all parties at the north end. Fitting the NPR/HS2 junction into the safeguarded land in the HS2 orders and modifying the HS2 station build to accept the NPR and Metrolink station boxes is going to need someone to commit funding. This would appear to dwarf the funding needed for 15/16.

However I am concerned that DfT will be asking what the payback period will be for the new platforms and the effect of NPR will be to reduce the Benefit Cost Ratio for 15/16 by reducing the benefit in later years. One can see that, freight excepted, the Castlefields traffic could become more homogenised and hence amenable to the wonders of ECTS and hence Grayling's Magic Digital Railway. To counter it one would need to generate more local services so limitations elsewhere such on the CLC will need to have a credible chance of allowing the extra traffic generation as NPR services start.

It would appear that we are currently stuck. But Transport Ministers tend not to stay in post that long. Once we achieve Brexit next year May should have no further use for ministerial makeweights just because they are Brexiteers so hopefully he will finally get dumped and we can have a minister who understands the need for quality public transport exists outside of London too.

Confused52 said:
The timing issues are driven by Mayfield as the SRFs show it makes sense for MCC to offer funding for that reason.

Thanks again for the helpful information.

Among the proposals for the Mayfield scheme was a large office development intended for civil service use. Given the station site itself is government owned perhaps the opportunity exists to relocate the DfT to Manchester in line with May's "promise" to rebalance the economy, something which could surely be supported by decentralising more government departments.

Chester1 · 1 Sep 2018

ECTS from Ordsall Chord/Ordsall Lane/Castlefield Junction to Piccadilly would be possible to do with current rolling stock orders + the 24 ECTS 158s going off lease by 2023. Unfortunately the 158s, 397s, 802s and Mark V sets are end door units. I imagine installing the cab equipment and signalling would be expensive. Does anyone know if it would be more or less than £200m?

Treating the corridor like Thameslink but with 195s (196s for W&BBLlandudno service) and 331s could work well and allow for a limited number of long distance Northern services. If Northern ran 4tph through Ordsall Chord to Airport/Stockport etc then changing trains would be less of an issue. TPE Scotland could divert to Victoria and use the (soon to be wired) sidings and Airport passengers could change at Victoria or Preston. TPE services would have to terminate at Victoria or Piccadilly though with maybe the Newcastle service reversing across the station throat to serve the Airport. I imagine the politics would be tricky though!

Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member