Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Glenn1969 · 13 Jun 2019

www.depotmayfield.com

Does this site being used for an arena project with 10,000 cap have an effect on the Victoria Arena or the 15/16 project. It is on the site of the former Mayfield Station next to Piccadilly

RailUK Forums

Chester1 · 13 Jun 2019

Glenn1969 said:
www.depotmayfield.com

Does this site being used for an arena project with 10,000 cap have an effect on the Victoria Arena or the 15/16 project. It is on the site of the former Mayfield Station next to Piccadilly

15 and 16 would be sufficiently far from Mayfield to avoid any overlap but close enough to need to coordinate building work. I think there would be about 20 metres or more between them. Many members of this site are desperate for the arena to be demolished to allow Victoria to be expanded back to its previous size. I am very doubtful it will happen for the foreseeable future.

158756 · 13 Jun 2019

Chester1 said:
15 and 16 would be sufficiently far from Mayfield to avoid any overlap but close enough to need to coordinate building work. I think there would be about 20 metres or more between them. Many members of this site are desperate for the arena to be demolished to allow Victoria to be expanded back to its previous size. I am very doubtful it will happen for the foreseeable future.

Mayfield won't affect the Arena. If a new arena with 20,000 capacity is built by the the Etihad one of them will go bust, likely the existing arena given the backing one at the Etihad would have. In my opinion it's stupid for the council to be supporting such a proposal, but that's not really the point of the thread. If the Arena does close it will probably take a long time to redevelop and unless plans are prepared in advance the railway won't be at the front of the queue against other uses more profitable for the owner.

Erniescooper · 13 Jun 2019

_toommm_ said:
The long platform which I presume was the old Longsight platform. It's the one of the right hand side as you leave Piccadilly, which spans the full length of the CAF green building. I'll try and get a photo later....

It’s the Longsight Excursion platform which is having some money spent on it so Northern can stable some 323s on there overnight as they will no longer be going onto Alstom

Jozhua · 14 Jun 2019

158756 said:
Mayfield won't affect the Arena. If a new arena with 20,000 capacity is built by the the Etihad one of them will go bust, likely the existing arena given the backing one at the Etihad would have. In my opinion it's stupid for the council to be supporting such a proposal, but that's not really the point of the thread. If the Arena does close it will probably take a long time to redevelop and unless plans are prepared in advance the railway won't be at the front of the queue against other uses more profitable for the owner.

If a new arena is built, they should be willing to cough up some funds to improve public transport. Whilst Metrolink is quite responsive and well organised when events end, the National Rail network doesn't respond one bit and continues as if nothing is happening. The roads get completely jammed, so arguably rail should be a good solution, however it's just not reliable enough to get people back to the surrounding areas of gm after these events.

HSTEd · 14 Jun 2019

I'm not convinced that more platforms at Victoria is actually a good solution.

Ideally Victoria could be closed and all trains concentrated on the Castlefield Corridor, but there is nothing like the capacity to allow that to happen.

The demolitions to enable expansion of the corridor would be astronomically expensive although could be recouped by selling the Piccadilly concourse for redevelopment, with a new concourse under the existing trainshed

HowardGWR · 14 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
I'm not convinced that more platforms at Victoria is actually a good solution.

Ideally Victoria could be closed and all trains concentrated on the Castlefield Corridor, but there is nothing like the capacity to allow that to happen.

The demolitions to enable expansion of the corridor would be astronomically expensive although could be recouped by selling the Piccadilly concourse for redevelopment, with a new concourse under the existing trainshed

If the listed building could be demolished (I think it is only one) Is it not possible that over-rail development along the whole corridor could pay for the expansion to four tracks and more platforms?

HSTEd · 14 Jun 2019

HowardGWR said:
If the listed building could be demolished (I think it is only one) Is it not possible that over-rail development along the whole corridor could pay for the expansion to four tracks and more platforms?

Over-rail development would likely require mass disruption associated with knocking down the viaduct and rebuilding it in a more suitable form for said development.
This would almost certainly require the viaduct be replaced with an adjacent one, at which point you have already had to remove all the adjacent buildings necessary for four tracks.

Ideally four tracks would solve many problems because it would allow Deansgate to remain open alongside an expanded Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

Altfish · 14 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
Ideally four tracks would solve many problems because it would allow Deansgate to remain open alongside an expanded Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

Four tracks all the way would take a lot of buildings to be demolished; some of which are not that old.

Joseph_Locke · 14 Jun 2019

Best of both - build the two new (CLC) tracks above the existing two (Chat Moss) tracks and remove Castlefield Junction altogether. Getting the two new tracks down between Princess St and London Road should be do-able, and leaves it all grade separated. Then close Deansgate altogether and build an "upstairs" over Oxford Road. ...

Bletchleyite · 14 Jun 2019

Joseph_Locke said:
Best of both - build the two new (CLC) tracks above the existing two (Chat Moss) tracks and remove Castlefield Junction altogether. Getting the two new tracks down between Princess St and London Road should be do-able, and leaves it all grade separated. Then close Deansgate altogether and build an "upstairs" over Oxford Road. ...

That'd be pig-ugly beyond belief (though probably nicer than Beetham Tower still).

If they want to add new tracks through the city centre (rather than just two more platforms at Picc), it's probably going to have to be a tunnel.

HSTEd · 14 Jun 2019

Altfish said:
Four tracks all the way would take a lot of buildings to be demolished; some of which are not that old.

Depending on what curve radii you are permitted, which would determine to what extent the line could "slalom" around buildings, I don't think it would be that many demolitions.

Almost everything east of Sackville Street is being demolished anyway, and there is easily room on the south side of the existing line, then there is a student-y bar that only really exists because of North CAmpus, a Starbucks and a multi story car park that is heavily used by uni people in the way, which are not particularly high value buildings. That gets you to Princess street, where if you can slalom to the north side of the tracks you might be able to get away with only demolishing the Joshua Brooks and the Starbucks building on Oxford Road to reach the station.

It would be a bit of a bendy line but not too bad, and once you are west of Oxford Road you could cantilever most of it over Whitworth Street until you reach Deansgate where you only have to demolish a handful of buildings, many of which are associated with the station.

It is far from a motorway through the city or something.

Jozhua · 14 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
I'm not convinced that more platforms at Victoria is actually a good solution.

Ideally Victoria could be closed and all trains concentrated on the Castlefield Corridor, but there is nothing like the capacity to allow that to happen.

The demolitions to enable expansion of the corridor would be astronomically expensive although could be recouped by selling the Piccadilly concourse for redevelopment, with a new concourse under the existing trainshed

Why? What's wrong with Victoria? It takes a lot of commuter and local capacity from North of Manchester and dumps it arguably closer to the city centre than Piccadilly/Oxford road does. I think the current mixture of stations available is absolutely fine and serves all sides of the city well, what benefit would come from closing Victoria?

Obviously connecting the stations together is useful, however the chord already solves this problem and increased capacity on Castlefield should allow for a couple more services an hour to provide this.

HSTEd · 14 Jun 2019

Jozhua said:
Why? What's wrong with Victoria? It takes a lot of commuter and local capacity from North of Manchester and dumps it arguably closer to the city centre than Piccadilly/Oxford road does. I think the current mixture of stations available is absolutely fine and serves all sides of the city well, what benefit would come from closing Victoria?

For the same reason that having five airports around a city is worse than having one airport that is five times the size.
If the Castlefield corridor could take all the trains going in and out of Manchester, we would gain the maximum connectivity between services, it would turn into the Clapham Junction of the Northwest.

It would encourage traffic on the railway rather than confusing people by splitting trains over multiple stations that are not close to each other.

Perhaps outright closing the station is overzealous, but it would certainly be reduced to a tiny fraction of it's current importance.

Greybeard33 · 14 Jun 2019

There is an existing thread in the Speculative Ideas section of the forum, 30 Options for Castlefield but DfT rules out extra platforms for Piccadilly. Might I suggest that that thread is used for discussion of speculative ideas? Leaving this thread in the Infrastructure section for discussion of the existing Northern Hub Package C scheme (Piccadilly P15/16 plus Oxford Road remodelling).

Dunc108 · 15 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
For the same reason that having five airports around a city is worse than having one airport that is five times the size.
If the Castlefield corridor could take all the trains going in and out of Manchester, we would gain the maximum connectivity between services, it would turn into the Clapham Junction of the Northwest.

It would encourage traffic on the railway rather than confusing people by splitting trains over multiple stations that are not close to each other.

Perhaps outright closing the station is overzealous, but it would certainly be reduced to a tiny fraction of it's current importance.

Shutting Victoria what kind of lunacy is that?in a City desperately struggling for capacity and scant chance of any more significant capacity enhancements - good luck with that one, not to mention the obscene amount of money it would take to create the capacity enhancements for the Castlefield corridor to take all the traffic. Birmingham seems to function very well with two mainline stations and Snow Hill even sports it's own InterCity services to Marylebone. Shut Victoria? Sorry, I disagree. Focusing all services on one station in Manchester is impractical and certainly in the current climate, unworkable. I like the expanded Victoria it's created better connectivity across the City in general and a link to the Airport via the Chord, more travel opportunities and more choice.

HSTEd · 15 Jun 2019

Dunc108 said:
Shutting Victoria what kind of lunacy is that?in a City desperately struggling for capacity and scant chance of any more significant capacity enhancements - good luck with that one, not to mention the obscene amount of money it would take to create the capacity enhancements for the Castlefield corridor to take all the traffic.

Note how this was response to a comment chain that began when I stated that the ideal solution would be to have all Manchester train traffic on the Castlefield corridor.
If we had the money to build a very high capacity Castlefield corridor Victoria station becomes far less important as an interchange because all trains would run Deansgate-Oxford Road-Picadilly.

Dunc108 said:
I like the expanded Victoria it's created better connectivity across the City in general and a link to the Airport via the Chord, more travel opportunities and more choice.

Choice is not really very useful in this case.
"There are two trains per hour to your destination, they go from opposite sides of the city centre and it will take quite a long time to travel between them"
"So really there is one train per hour to my destination as I will have to commit to one station"

Jozhua · 15 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
Note how this was response to a comment chain that began when I stated that the ideal solution would be to have all Manchester train traffic on the Castlefield corridor.

Definitely don't think it would be an ideal solution either, given all the money in the world. I doubt the majority of passengers are changing between stations and are probably coming into Manchester for commuting purposes...There is also plenty of options to change between services within Victoria.

Glenn1969 · 15 Jun 2019

If Victoria is closed how do trains from the Calder Valley , Clitheroe and Atherton lines access Castlefield? Would capacity on the Chord be more than it is now? Think closing Vic is an unworkable suggestion

HSTEd · 15 Jun 2019

Jozhua said:
Definitely don't think it would be an ideal solution either, given all the money in the world. I doubt the majority of passengers are changing between stations and are probably coming into Manchester for commuting purposes...There is also plenty of options to change between services within Victoria.

Well people who would have to change between stations are much less likely to actually make their journey by rail in the first place.

Ideally all trains through Manchester should go to the same station, although they could obviously make additional stops at other places.

Glenn1969 · 15 Jun 2019

At the moment passengers from certain lines are forced to change between stations to access Inter City services at Piccadilly. A way does need to be found to give these lines (Calder Valley and Atherton lines in particular) a service via the Chord. I'm just not sure shutting Victoria is the way to do it but 15/16 could be

Chester1 · 15 Jun 2019

HSTEd said:
Note how this was response to a comment chain that began when I stated that the ideal solution would be to have all Manchester train traffic on the Castlefield corridor.
If we had the money to build a very high capacity Castlefield corridor Victoria station becomes far less important as an interchange because all trains would run Deansgate-Oxford Road-Picadilly.

Choice is not really very useful in this case.
"There are two trains per hour to your destination, they go from opposite sides of the city centre and it will take quite a long time to travel between them"
"So really there is one train per hour to my destination as I will have to commit to one station"

That is not accurate. Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Leeds are the only stations that have services via Victoria + direct to Piccadilly and the 4 express services all go via Victoria. The extra journey time between Manchester and Dewsbury via Victoria is offset by the direct service stopping at Stalybridge and Mossley. The only time you choose between stations AND chord or Victoria only services is when Oxford Road or Piccadilly are more convenient but Victoria is still a reasonable option and you are going to Huddersfield or Leeds.

The limit of Piccadilly 13-16 would be 16tph. The only southern destinations that are viable are via Stockport, replacing the 4tph of Northern services that terminate in 1-12. This would make it easier to lengthen services because platform sharing would no longer be necessary. Sending 13-16 services through Ardwick would require a flyover or cutting back a large number of services that use 1-12. Neither of which is particularly practical.

Glenn1969 said:
At the moment passengers from certain lines are forced to change between stations to access Inter City services at Piccadilly. A way does need to be found to give these lines (Calder Valley and Atherton lines in particular) a service via the Chord. I'm just not sure shutting Victoria is the way to do it but 15/16 could be

Currently 11tph use 13 and 14. The 12th slot is reserved for a Calder Valley service that was crucial to the Ordsall Chord business case but there is no platform capacity at the Airport or available rolling stock. Presuming the whole package is authorised i.e. Oxford Road redevelopment, then the CLC stoppers would have to be extended. This immediately fills half the extra capacity through Piccadilly gained from building 15 and 16. I am not sure about Atherton but you are right about the nature of the services that should use 13-16. Until 2-3 years ago only 8tph used Piccadilly 13-14 and the situation was barely acceptable then. If 15 and 16 are built no additional long distance services should run through Castlefield.

Bletchleyite · 15 Jun 2019

Glenn1969 said:
At the moment passengers from certain lines are forced to change between stations to access Inter City services at Piccadilly. A way does need to be found to give these lines (Calder Valley and Atherton lines in particular) a service via the Chord. I'm just not sure shutting Victoria is the way to do it but 15/16 could be

The problems of the North West's rail network will never be solved if people keep wanting a direct service from everywhere to everywhere via everywhere.

The way to get from the Atherton line to Picc is a quick same-platform change at Salford Crescent.

Glenn1969 · 15 Jun 2019

Which means to get a long distance train you have to change twice. That would put a lot of people off. Including me (because of my disability) if the connections are tight. At the moment connecting anywhere is a lottery because the service is so unreliable

Bletchleyite · 15 Jun 2019

Glenn1969 said:
At the moment connecting anywhere is a lottery because the service is so unreliable

Yet the best way to solve that is to simplify, not complicate, the service.

158756 · 15 Jun 2019

I think the point being made was that if there was an unlimited pot of money you would rebuild Piccadilly and the Castlefield corridor to be capable of taking all the traffic from Victoria, not that it was at all realistic. But the point is relevant to discussion of current and future services, because Piccadilly is the vastly superior destination, both in terms of location (with Oxford Road as well) and connections, so of course everywhere wants access to it. HS2, if ever completed, will only make this problem worse.

daodao · 16 Jun 2019

Glenn1969 said:
At the moment passengers from certain lines are forced to change between stations to access Inter City services at Piccadilly. A way does need to be found to give these lines (Calder Valley and Atherton lines in particular) a service via the Chord. I'm just not sure shutting Victoria is the way to do it but 15/16 could be

The Calder Valley line is the route that should be allocated the paths on the Ordsall chord; all Standedge line trains that serve Piccadilly should use the more direct route via Guide Bridge.

There is less need for the Atherton line to be routed to Piccadilly as it is now merely used for a local suburban service rather than longer-distance express trains; if logistically possible, it should be converted to Metrolink, like the proposals for the Glossop/Hadfield and Marple Rose Hill via Reddish North routes. The CLC line is another line that could be converted to Metrolink as far as Warrington, with Merseyrail running a local electric service beyond Warrington Central to central Liverpool. Converting these services to Metrolink would free up capacity at Manchester's heavy rail stations.

Passengers from Wigan itself have direct inter-city trains to Crewe/Birmingham/London, and also currently other trains that run via different routes to the MSJA line and beyond.

mrcaa · 5 Jul 2019

TfW’s latest brainwave on P14. Advertise a 5-car train (2-car plus 3-car 175s) on the displays then refuse to let anyone board the rear two cars as Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows are too short. They said they’d open them at Warrington Bank Quay but the load’s usually a lot lighter by then. Chaos when you’ve got passengers for later services getting in the way of the rush for the front carriages.

Eccles1983 · 5 Jul 2019

mrcaa said:
TfW’s latest brainwave on P14. Advertise a 5-car train (2-car plus 3-car 175s) on the displays then refuse to let anyone board the rear two cars as Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows are too short. They said they’d open them at Warrington Bank Quay but the load’s usually a lot lighter by then. Chaos when you’ve got passengers for later services getting in the way of the rush for the front carriages.

What did you want them to do?

The rear sets are locked out - for valid reasons.

The 5 car cannot be uncoupled at the minute. So they either cancel it or let it run until they get to a platform that can take the 5 cars.

With regards to advertising it as a 5 car - well it is! The length of the train is correct.

terryc · 6 Jul 2019

mrcaa said:
TfW’s latest brainwave on P14. Advertise a 5-car train (2-car plus 3-car 175s) on the displays then refuse to let anyone board the rear two cars as Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows are too short. They said they’d open them at Warrington Bank Quay but the load’s usually a lot lighter by then. Chaos when you’ve got passengers for later services getting in the way of the rush for the front carriages.

Unless things have changed over the past couple of years, my quail maps shows Platform 5 at Earlestown can accommodate 5 cars and Platform 4 can handle 7 cars, and both platforms at Newton-le-Willows can accommodate 5 cars.
If that is no longer the case (longer units?), then there should be plenty of room to extend both NLW platforms Eastwards, without too much problem. It should also be possible to extend P 5 at Earlestown southwards, but this probably more of a challenge due to the radius, and the need to move the signal protecting the crossover from South Junction

Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Member