On the contrary, it’d make an enormous difference. The limiting factor presently is station dwell time, especially at Piccadilly. The plain line between stations is, I’d suggest, easily capable of handling 16tph (although the flat junctions to the west would probably be struggling by then). The ability to run a second train into one platform at Piccadilly whilst the first is still loading in the other platform would be very helpful, and a second island would ease the serious overcrowding on the platforms which is often bordering on dangerous and increases dwell times further.
-
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!
Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16
- Thread starter Rhydgaled
- 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
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, but my point was how long it took from establishing that there was a problem to actually doing something about it, and all that required was some rolling stock, not a major construction project.
No it won't unfortunately. I think platforms 15 and 16 are a good idea but they are not a panacea. They will be used by their maximum capacity of 16tph which will push problems down the line. Overall it would be an improvement but people need to be realistic.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Very true that, was just mentioning that by the time they actually found a "solution" to the problem, it had become even worse
Its very frustrating. I definitely think the same will happen at least until there are 3 x 5/6 coach express services. If TPE takeover Liverpool-Nottingham and use double 185s it will reduce Castlefield dwell times by reducing overcrowding and bigger doors. The surpressed demand will fill up the extra capacity fast. I think if Northern run the third express service they should order 6 coach 195s. They would soak up demand, have low dwell times and match the nature of the service. When they are no longer needed the middle coaches could be redistributed to lengthen 2 coach units.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
When and why/how would these six coach units be "no longer needed"? Besides, once you get to 5/6 cars, the efficiency of an underfloor engine in every carriage (as per a conventional DMU) doesn't compare so well to loco-hauled coaching stock, particularly if you have a cab on the other end to avoid running around. Especially with modern diesel locomotives such as 68s which aren't so sluggish like the 31s and 47s of the past were.
To clarify I don't think capacity would no longer be need, just that the units might no longer be the most suitable at some point. 195s and 331s are the best units to run services through the Castlefield corridor (once they are in service)! They are suitable for both regional and commuter services and have doors at thirds. I guess it depends where the third service starts, if its in the main shed at Piccadilly then express stock might be more suitable.
There would be significant capacity issues over the Piccadilly station throat if the services to/from the Airport and via the Huddersfield route had to cross over so as to go via Guide Bridge, as well as requiring a reversal. Then there are reliability issues if there is anything running late on the Guide Bridge line.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As I've stated before the solution to this is to stop running them to the Airport and have them terminate at Piccadilly.
This may not be desirable, but it is a fix for the Ordsall issue. A better fix is P15/16.
While it would work as described from an operational point of view, politically it would go down like a proverbial lead balloon (i.e it would be very unpopular).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It would annoy a smaller subset of passengers than the present debacle does.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Someone needs to tell the powers that be to start off by not sending 2 car pacers through the UK's second biggest city 
...
I genuinely think the terminating platform at Oxford Road is underutilised. Personally I love Oxford Road compared to using Piccadilly when given the choice, it's usually quieter and there are more places to sit.
I've also noticed trains that terminate at 13/14 have much longer dwell times than those that don't as staff have to ensure everyone is off the train. I think if trains are to use 13/14 they MUST have an onward connection to a destination either side as it both reduces dwell times and ensures that the best use is being made of the platforms.
...I genuinely think the terminating platform at Oxford Road is underutilised. Personally I love Oxford Road compared to using Piccadilly when given the choice, it's usually quieter and there are more places to sit.
I've also noticed trains that terminate at 13/14 have much longer dwell times than those that don't as staff have to ensure everyone is off the train. I think if trains are to use 13/14 they MUST have an onward connection to a destination either side as it both reduces dwell times and ensures that the best use is being made of the platforms.
Someone needs to tell the powers that be to start off by not sending 2 car pacers through the UK's second biggest city
I genuinely think the terminating platform at Oxford Road is underutilised. Personally I love Oxford Road compared to using Piccadilly when given the choice, it's usually quieter and there are more places to sit.
I've also noticed trains that terminate at 13/14 have much longer dwell times than those that don't as staff have to ensure everyone is off the train. I think if trains are to use 13/14 they MUST have an onward connection to a destination either side as it both reduces dwell times and ensures that the best use is being made of the platforms.
After May it will be reduced to TfW only. I am a regular user of the service but think new franchise bids should have made it compulsory to divert the service to Victoria rather than just an option. 13 and 14 have been managed much better in recent months but the rolling stock problem will make things worse once Mark Vs, 397s and 802s start using them.
I disagree about Oxford Road and think it needs a major redevelopment regardless of what happens at Piccadilly. A lift to platform 1 is essential because it would allow half of westbound services to use it rather than all but diverted services using platform 2. This would significantly reduce overcrowding on the island platform.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Ideally both P15 & P16 at Piccadilly, and Oxford Road redesigned to allow all 4 platforms be used and accessible would be commissioned to allow for more efficient pathing through the corridor. However in the meantime, longer units will reduce dwell time, and simple measures like not stopping TPE services at Oxford Road, better utilising the 3 accessible platforms there instead of queuing services even when a platform is free, not terminating services or having crew changes there would go a long way to get the maximum potential out of the section.
Reducing services or trying to shoehorn them into the main shed will only increase passenger movement at Piccadilly, cause more stress and hassle at Piccadilly P13/14 and will do nothing to reduce dwell times in the corridor. I know the airport services have become the scapegoat on here, and that some members have seemingly forgotten that the corridor has always had problems, but as I have argued previously the airport services are a new(ish) market that both the DfT and TOCs see as important and one that GMCA are heavily invested in. So solutions to this need to be found instead of simply burying heads and hoping the problem goes away. As others have said, there really is no reason why the corridor, even with its current limitations can't support the services asked of it with the application of a few simple changes.
Reducing services or trying to shoehorn them into the main shed will only increase passenger movement at Piccadilly, cause more stress and hassle at Piccadilly P13/14 and will do nothing to reduce dwell times in the corridor. I know the airport services have become the scapegoat on here, and that some members have seemingly forgotten that the corridor has always had problems, but as I have argued previously the airport services are a new(ish) market that both the DfT and TOCs see as important and one that GMCA are heavily invested in. So solutions to this need to be found instead of simply burying heads and hoping the problem goes away. As others have said, there really is no reason why the corridor, even with its current limitations can't support the services asked of it with the application of a few simple changes.
Mordac
Established Member
When have 2 car pacers ever worked in Birmingham?Someone needs to tell the powers that be to start off by not sending 2 car pacers through the UK's second biggest city
We know Neil but theres no point going over what should have been done first or vice versa as well as your opposition to the chord all the time but actually focusing on dealing with this problem now.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
You see by Urban area Manchester is bigger, however by Metro Birmingham is bigger, I'd say they're both pretty close either way...When have 2 car pacers ever worked in Birmingham?
It is a good example, however of the regional disparities between the North, that Manchesters rail network still has Pacers running through it, while Birmingham probably hasn't seen them for decades!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The Snow Hill lines got 172s, but that was having decided there would be no wires. In Manchester there were to be wires and 319s instead, but obviously that has got scaled back somewhat.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Hopefully the 319's on the Bolton line will improve the rolling stock situation somewhat.
If 156's and Pacers are removed from Northerns services through 13/14 and replaced with 150's and 319's with central doors that should improve loading and unloading speed a bit...
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Okay, so I've been wondering about a couple of different things that could be introduced to relieve capacity on 13/14 that aren't two new platforms, although that would be the obvious long term solution.
1. Can't they position a stop signal closer to the platform so trains can enter sooner after the last one leaves?
2. Can't two trains use each platform at once, most train stations have a "1A" and "1B" for example...
1. Can't they position a stop signal closer to the platform so trains can enter sooner after the last one leaves?
2. Can't two trains use each platform at once, most train stations have a "1A" and "1B" for example...
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
Near Dover?
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,155
Rather than extend 13/14 to 15/16, how outlandish a proposal would it be to rebuild the disused line at Ardwick, so trains from the NW could go via Victoria, round the east part of the city and joint the airport line with a new curve at Ardwick? Has it ever been thought of?
Admittedly it does seem daft that by using the Chord, trains from the NE wind their way round the west of the city anti-clockwise, whereas trains from the NW would wind their way round the east clockwise. But it's a way of getting trains from the N and W directly tot he airport and relieving the congestion @ Piccadilly.
Wouldn't these trains coming from the Ardwick curve have to cross the throat at some point in order to get to the airport lines?
1. There’s already a mid-platform “closing up” signal on each platform in each direction, so the second train can start moving towards the platform pretty much straight after the first one starts moving out of the platform.
2. No - in theory, at the moment, you can get a second train in behind (sometimes you do get signalled halfway in if the first train goes a little bit too far and stops with the rear clear of the mid-platform overlap, or if it’s formed of a 150+142 and goes to the 4-car board with the same effect), but it’d be an absolute nightmare if you released the doors at the ‘wrong’ end - there usually just isn’t space for passengers to circulate because of the crowds waiting at the ‘correct’ end of the opposite platform.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
If trains are signalled in halfway already due to trains going over slightly, why don't they just change the stopping positions so that two can be in at the same time?
If trains were already scheduled into a certain half of a platform and there was decent passenger information was provided I don't see how it can be much of an issue. Also, having the trains run on time would help the crowds building up on the platforms.
I don’t think it’d work at all. The crowd for trains on one side, plus people leaving a train there and trying to get past the crowd to leave the platform, is almost up to the yellow line on the other side when it’s busy. There’s literally nowhere for other passengers to go. These are trains coming from a long way away too, so it’s common for them to arrive in the wrong order. The benefits aren’t great anyway because you still have to wait for the second train to depart before the third can arrive.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Agreed - I think that 15/16 are massively over-egged on here.
Rather than have a realistic debate about the balance between the desire to have direct Airport trains to everywhere in northern England and the need to have reliable trains for everyday commuters, daydreaming about 15/16 seems a good way of keeping up the pretence that everyone can have everything (whilst conveniently blaming Westminster for a problem that we could easily solve if we tailored services around Manchester to what the infrastructure could cope with - instead of cramming more short trains over busy junctions - presumably to try to make the situation so chaotic that the Government will be forced to get their chequebook out?).
- There are too many services delayed around Manchester to provide a reliable attractive railway for car drivers.
- There are too many flat junctions around Manchester to permit the variety of rail services that we currently have.
- There are too many short trains running around Manchester (that could be increased in length and reduced in frequency to provide a more reliable service).
Either have a sensible discussion about what is practical (bearing in mind that local train services are heavily subsidised up here, so any infrastructure spending is automatically harder to justify than in areas where the TOCs are paying a premium to the Government).
Otherwise the process will be as follows:
- Spend hundreds of millions on the Ordsall Chord (supposedly to improve bottlenecks)
- Decide that this isn't sufficient so spend hundreds of millions of pounds on 15/16 so that more trains can run to Manchester Airport
- Find that there's not sufficient space at Manchester Airport for all of these additional trains (especially with the "Leeds" services going up from a 3x23m 185 that dwells there for ten minutes before returning towards Yorkshire to a 5x26m 802 that dwells for forty minutes, thus occupying a lot more platform time/ space and meaning it significantly harder for two trains to use the same Airport platform than is currently possible)
- Demand hundreds of millions of pounds on additional platforms at the Airport because we can't cope with all of the additional services that the Chord/ 15/ 16 meant now run to the Airport
- Find the next bottleneck caused by all of these additional services and demand yet more Government money (repeat to fade...)
Or, stop playing the victim card, look at what works elsewhere, have a simple map of regular services around Manchester that minimise conflicting movements, provide straightforward interchange to other lines, extend services to match the maximum platform lengths etc, do the boring/simple things instead of trying to link everywhere to everywhere.
Altfish
Member
Northern has been created as a basket case franchise. It is made up only of local and stopping services. The profitable services in the area have been hived off to other franchises, Virgin, TPE, East Midlands, Cross Country.
Its still a worthwhile project but it does need thinking through first. There is no chance of getting the funding required to expand Manchester Airport Station further. That means sending 8tph to / from Castlefield through Stockport, which would be all Northern services and Liverpool-Norwich. I doubt that a reliable timetable could be made.
Rebuilding Oxford Road would help by making it a more appealing station to use than Piccadilly 13 and 14 and by allowing all 4 through platforms to be scheduled for use rather than 3. Its platforms are too short and overcrowded. Piccadilly 13 and 14 have a capacity of 12tph. Currently 11tph run through Oxford Road and 2tph (CLC stoppers) terminate. I would divert one service to Victoria (probably TfW) and extend the CLC stoppers by merging them into a Stockport service. That would shrink the number of services slightly but would allow platform 5 at Oxford Road to be closed to enable extension of 1-4. 12tph would be reasonable short to medium term capacity for the Castlefield corridor. Once the results have been assessed a plan could then be devised about how and where to run a 16tph after building 15 and 16.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Once again you are being slightly economic with the truth, the Ordsall Chord was part of an overall improvement for Manchester which included P15/16 at Piccadilly, Oxford Road redesign, electrification etc. Shelving much of the rest was a decision made by civil servants and their Minister for reasons best known to themselves.
But let's play the game for a minute and imagine GMCA and the GM councils somehow decided that they wanted airport services to be curtailed & somehow managed to convince DfT, the TOCs etc to do this, what then? Will the delays suddenly stop? Will Manchester's heavy rail network suddenly transform itself into a super-efficient S-Bahn service? Will all the extra passengers now tipped out at Manchester instead of the airport find some super high-specced shuttle service waiting to whisk them the final few miles? And most of all, having effectively curtailed future airport passenger growth, which roads / motorways to you propose to expand / build to handle all the extra traffic that the GM region's billion pound investment into the airport will attract?
Because here's the thing, more punters, be it on business or leisure, are heading in the direction of Greater Manchester to use the airport. This is an indisputable fact. And until some teleport system can be invented to negate the need for physically moving them, they will need to find ways to reach the airport. Now despite you might believe, there is potential to move large numbers of these by rail without having to clog up roads or platform space in GM. It just need some simple improvements, some of which are on their way, some of which are gathering dust at Whitehall. Yes they cost money, but then so does having roads locked solid with traffic. And like other major cities, Manchester aims to reduce traffic, soooo.....
I guess what I am saying is that the airport services are here to stay. No major stakeholder in them or the airport has any desire to stop this being the case, and so the next thing that is needed is the proper investment that will allow both them & all the other services in the area to offer more capacity, more services & more efficiency. You can bemoan them all you like, blame them for all manner of ills, but those involved are not interested in what you might like to believe but in what solutions are needed to deliver the capacity needed, not what might be convenient for a bit. Or at least they should be!
- Status