• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,270
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The "stabling point" is officially called the Reversing Siding. It is on the opposite side of the River Irwell to the station, just west of Sainsbury's and south of the running lines, and is long enough to accommodate a Class 319 unit.

I think the mention of the Reversing Siding as a possible area for a bay platform had arisen in a forum member's posting as an adjunct to the existing platform 3 at Manchester Victoria, but I still await the actual distance that a connecting platform from the Reversing Siding to the existing end of platform 3 and the infrastructural and signalling logistics required to cause this to occur.

We actually passed that area earlier this afternoon en route to Manchester Victoria from Wigan Wallgate and the distance from there to platform 3 is not small. There was a 4-car Class 319 EMU parked in the Reversing Siding at that time.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
I think the mention of the Reversing Siding as a possible area for a bay platform had arisen in a forum member's posting as an adjunct to the existing platform 3 at Manchester Victoria, but I still await the actual distance that a connecting platform from the Reversing Siding to the existing end of platform 3 and the infrastructural and signalling logistics required to cause this to occur.
I'm afraid I can't help you with costings or logistics, but the Sectional Appendix lists Manchester Victoria West Jn (the site of the turnback siding's junction) as being 16 chains away from the mile-zero marker at Victoria station. The current points for the siding face east, toward the station.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I think the mention of the Reversing Siding as a possible area for a bay platform had arisen in a forum member's posting as an adjunct to the existing platform 3 at Manchester Victoria, but I still await the actual distance that a connecting platform from the Reversing Siding to the existing end of platform 3 and the infrastructural and signalling logistics required to cause this to occur.

We actually passed that area earlier this afternoon en route to Manchester Victoria from Wigan Wallgate and the distance from there to platform 3 is not small. There was a 4-car Class 319 EMU parked in the Reversing Siding at that time.
I'm afraid I can't help you with costings or logistics, but the Sectional Appendix lists Manchester Victoria West Jn (the site of the turnback siding's junction) as being 16 chains away from the mile-zero marker at Victoria station. The current points for the siding face east, toward the station.
You can also measure distance on Google Maps. I make it about 167m (8 chains) from the end of Platform 3 to the start of the Reversing Siding.

Clearly additional points and associated signalling would be needed to provide a west-facing entry to the siding.
 

CHAPS2034

Member
Joined
13 Mar 2018
Messages
530
Some news here
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c... W1 - TCR North&dm_i=IJS,6IMEL,JKUTCF,PVUSJ,1


More exciting news in the pipeline for the North too from Network Rail
News around the TransPennine Route Upgrade wasn’t the only promising infrastructure investment updates Mr Montgomery provided to the panel, either.

He told the attendees: “Wigan to Lostock electrification [is arguably] three years out, while for Northern Powerhouse Rail, the supporting business case should be ready for next year, while actual works on the project likely to begin next control period.”

There was good news for the Cross Manchester and Castlefield Corridor projects too, with Network Rail having reportedly secured funding for. As part of these, Mr Montgomery told the room Network Rail were investigating possible tram-train projects to relieve congestion.

The Castlefield area had been declared congested to ensure that Network Rail is able to secure the investment necessary to reach the next stage of development within the next two years.

Finally, Mr Montgomery issued some brilliant news for the Energy Coast Rail Upgrade – sometimes overlooked among all the other exciting rail investment programmes for the North – with the Network Rail director explaining that there had been positive movements towards quite considerable funding to bring the line up to standard.

The route has been highlighted for improvement as part of necessary connectivity requirements for the new proposed nuclear power station – and although plans have now been stalled on that front, the rail improvements still appear viable at this present time.

Is this another move forward or something we already knew? Not very well written IMHO.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856

This might be a move forwards, if Network Rail has secured funding for Castlefield upgrades that's big news!

I do find the sentence:
"The Castlefield area had been declared congested to ensure that Network Rail is able to secure the investment necessary to reach the next stage of development within the next two years."

Makes it sound like Network Rail declared Castlefield congested just to secure funding, rather than it actually being horrifically congested!
 
Joined
6 Feb 2014
Messages
88
If we are getting consideration of new paths through the Castlefield corridor. I think no cheap fudge will do.
Manchester clearly needs a new East/West rail link - preferably one that supports NPR HS3 as well as other traffic. I think this needs to underground (a sort of mini Crossrail) with a new Central Manchester station at least 4 tracked to the throats and then 6 or 8 through platforms - so that say Preston trains are always on Platform A, Liverpool trains are always on Platform B etc.
At present we are getting lots of expensive proposals addressing a range of options (e.g. speeding up Manchester Airport - Yorkshire services by rerouting them through Victoria (always seemed a daft idea to me), Removing terminating services from Piccadilly and Oxford Road in favour of commuter focused through services e.g. Liverpool to Crewe stoppers, Platform 15/16 at Piccadilly, Oxford Road capacity issues, NPR HS3, Phase 2 of HS2 already with a proposal for a long tunnel access to a new Piccadilly station) each being looked at in isolation and promoted by different interest groups.
I think it would be far more sensible to bite the bullet and decide to do a single major project. If cost savings are required, a rerouting of HS2 so that it approaches Manchester from the West would obviate the need for the separate Airport to Ardwick tunnel.
Interestingly there is already a lot of underground infrastructures in Manchester (for example the disused Manchester and Salford Junction canal tunnels run from Castlefield basin to underneath Manchester Central on an alignment that if continued would pass close to Piccadilly - although probably not deep enough and in parts not wide enough for this purpose). A station with platforms long enough to accommodate HS2 trains would near enough stretch from Manchester Central to Piccadilly anyway so access could be at both ends.
Such a proposal would leave the existing Platform 13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate/Castlefield corridor for commuter, freight, and any residual diesel services only.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
Mr Montgomery told the room Network Rail were investigating possible tram-train projects to relieve congestion.
is noteworthy too. Does it mean diverting some current train services onto roads to reduce the Castlefield corridor congestion?
It could be yet another way of pushing rail improvement further into the future by having more studies, which are obviously cheaper than actually upgrading a railway.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
If we are getting consideration of new paths through the Castlefield corridor. I think no cheap fudge will do.
Manchester clearly needs a new East/West rail link - preferably one that supports NPR HS3 as well as other traffic. I think this needs to underground (a sort of mini Crossrail) with a new Central Manchester station at least 4 tracked to the throats and then 6 or 8 through platforms - so that say Preston trains are always on Platform A, Liverpool trains are always on Platform B etc.
At present we are getting lots of expensive proposals addressing a range of options (e.g. speeding up Manchester Airport - Yorkshire services by rerouting them through Victoria (always seemed a daft idea to me), Removing terminating services from Piccadilly and Oxford Road in favour of commuter focused through services e.g. Liverpool to Crewe stoppers, Platform 15/16 at Piccadilly, Oxford Road capacity issues, NPR HS3, Phase 2 of HS2 already with a proposal for a long tunnel access to a new Piccadilly station) each being looked at in isolation and promoted by different interest groups.
I think it would be far more sensible to bite the bullet and decide to do a single major project. If cost savings are required, a rerouting of HS2 so that it approaches Manchester from the West would obviate the need for the separate Airport to Ardwick tunnel.
Interestingly there is already a lot of underground infrastructures in Manchester (for example the disused Manchester and Salford Junction canal tunnels run from Castlefield basin to underneath Manchester Central on an alignment that if continued would pass close to Piccadilly - although probably not deep enough and in parts not wide enough for this purpose). A station with platforms long enough to accommodate HS2 trains would near enough stretch from Manchester Central to Piccadilly anyway so access could be at both ends.
Such a proposal would leave the existing Platform 13/14, Oxford Road, Deansgate/Castlefield corridor for commuter, freight, and any residual diesel services only.

As much as I'm sure we'd all love to see it, I doubt it's going to happen...

The Castlefield upgrades as currently planned are no cheap fudge, pretty sure the price tag is about half a billion! 15/16 will literally double platform capacity (which is currently the main issue in the area.) and upgrading Oxford Road and the width of tracks will reduce congestion significantly.

Even adding four more trains per hour, as proposed should leave a good amount of room for increasing reliability.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,075
As much as I'm sure we'd all love to see it, I doubt it's going to happen...

The Castlefield upgrades as currently planned are no cheap fudge, pretty sure the price tag is about half a billion! 15/16 will literally double platform capacity (which is currently the main issue in the area.) and upgrading Oxford Road and the width of tracks will reduce congestion significantly.

Even adding four more trains per hour, as proposed should leave a good amount of room for increasing reliability.
I thought that platform reoccupation time was the limiting factor at the moment, but as soon as you have 2 in each direction at Piccadilly then the headways on the single track in each direction soon limit the throughput. 4 more trains per hour might not be such a good idea, but more platforms and longer trains would probably be adequate for a lot more growth anyway.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
This sounds more promising for Castlefield. I’ll only believe its happening when the work actually starts though...
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
This might be a move forwards, if Network Rail has secured funding for Castlefield upgrades that's big news!

I do find the sentence:
"The Castlefield area had been declared congested to ensure that Network Rail is able to secure the investment necessary to reach the next stage of development within the next two years."

Makes it sound like Network Rail declared Castlefield congested just to secure funding, rather than it actually being horrifically congested!

Congested Infrastructure is a definition (from EU law, I think), that not all train paths bid can be accommodated.

That mandates the infrastructure manager (i.e. NR) to assess ways that all bids could be accommodated, which includes infrastructure solutions to the problem being identified.

It does not however require these infrastructure solutions to be funded or delivered.
 

Jozhua

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2019
Messages
1,856
I thought that platform reoccupation time was the limiting factor at the moment, but as soon as you have 2 in each direction at Piccadilly then the headways on the single track in each direction soon limit the throughput. 4 more trains per hour might not be such a good idea, but more platforms and longer trains would probably be adequate for a lot more growth anyway.

Network rail says the extra upgrades can facilitate 4 more trains per hour. I mean currently there is around 10-12 per hour plus freight I believe so with double the platforms, four more seems reasonable to allow for room for more reliability :)
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,973
Network rail says the extra upgrades can facilitate 4 more trains per hour. I mean currently there is around 10-12 per hour plus freight I believe so with double the platforms, four more seems reasonable to allow for room for more reliability :)

Platforms 15 and 16 combined with rebuilding Oxford Road would increase capacity to 16tph. Platforms 13 and 14 have a capacity of 12tph with 11tph currently being used. Oxford Road has a capacity of 15tph with 13tph currently being used. For the corridor has a whole its only 1tph extra i.e. 1tph extra for Oxford Road but 4tph extra for Piccadilly.

I would prefer Oxford Road to take priority over Piccadilly. The lack of disabled access to platform 1 means that its only timetabled with one westbound platform, two eastbound and one terminating. Two westbound and two eastbound would be an improvement even with 2tph (CLC stoppers) terminating in them. It would slightly decrease eastbound platform capacity but significantly increase west bound capacity. Having 4 through platforms being able to support longer units would remove one of the main bottlenecks to increasing services to 6 coaches (if a few million was spent to build a lift to platform 1 it would still be too short for TPEs new stock or double Northern EMUs.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
Makes it sound like Network Rail declared Castlefield congested just to secure funding, rather than it actually being horrifically congested!
Sounds like it. Hopefully it will push the government into just accepting to release funding.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
The question that comes to mind is if this is a significant step then why haven’t Network Rail declared Castlefield “congested“ before?

At this point anything that could cause the DfT to look at the situation is useful though. So if this is a ploy then we’ll have to see how it works.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
Maybe Grayling didn't go for it, or was never available to be made aware? But it does seem a no-brainer.

Agree on longer trains. The terrible dwells are due to 2-4 car trains with end doors, which have no place running through Manchester, taking up such precious paths. Electric trains will clear out quicker too.

Lostock news is good, but they should also be looking at the CLC route being wired. It's commuter at each end, and regional throughout. Makes a lot of sense to me, and could probably support much higher frequency, even if 1-2tph extra turned at a new Oxford Road.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,545
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Lostock news is good, but they should also be looking at the CLC route being wired. It's commuter at each end, and regional throughout. Makes a lot of sense to me, and could probably support much higher frequency, even if 1-2tph extra turned at a new Oxford Road.

I agree. The large number of intermediate stations coupled with decent modern EMUs (not 319s - but 323s would be fine) would easily take 10 minutes or more off an all-stations journey. Lines like that with a lot of closely spaced local stations have disproportionate benefit from electrification.

For a similar reason (if the trams aren't going that way) 25kV out to Marple and Rose Hill would make a lot of sense, even if the Hope Valley local had to be a fast DMU. You'd get 5 minutes off an all-stations run there at least, possibly more, and that could allow simplification into a clockface service rather than different stopping patterns, again using 323s or similar.

(Oops, I alluded to S-Bahn-Manchester again, didn't I? :D)
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I hope that means 15-16 and the Oxford Road work, and not some kind of "digital" fudge. If so, @Bantamzen will be pleased to see a reduction in S-Bahn-Manchester talk...for now at least! :D

As opposed to a Manc-Bahn fudge where a Manc-Bahn simply won't fit (i.e. on a city network built to deal to handle both local and long distance services), then you are right, I'd be going loop-the-expletive-loop. Because then you'd be forced to actually think how you might actually build such a thing without the giant, fun sized Crayolas... ;):E
 

Sceptre

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
187
Location
Leeds
Maybe Grayling didn't go for it, or was never available to be made aware? But it does seem a no-brainer.

Agree on longer trains. The terrible dwells are due to 2-4 car trains with end doors, which have no place running through Manchester, taking up such precious paths. Electric trains will clear out quicker too.

Lostock news is good, but they should also be looking at the CLC route being wired. It's commuter at each end, and regional throughout. Makes a lot of sense to me, and could probably support much higher frequency, even if 1-2tph extra turned at a new Oxford Road.

The Secretary of State has had the inspectorate's report on his desk for 30 months by now.

He's approved other TWAO but not this one.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
The Secretary of State has had the inspectorate's report on his desk for 30 months by now.

He's approved other TWAO but not this one.

It's so out of date now that most of it will need to be rewritten and certainly re-costed. With the best will in the world it can't be approved as it is, and you'd need a crystal ball to predict when work could get started. Completion impossible before 2030 I'd guess, and more likely nearer 2035. It still looks most likely to become a project that never happens at all.

Come on DfT , prove me wrong, firstly by agreeing it, then getting it done.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It's so out of date now that most of it will need to be rewritten and certainly re-costed. With the best will in the world it can't be approved as it is, and you'd need a crystal ball to predict when work could get started. Completion impossible before 2030 I'd guess, and more likely nearer 2035. It still looks most likely to become a project that never happens at all.

Come on DfT , prove me wrong, firstly by agreeing it, then getting it done.

Trying to remain optimistic, I read the noises coming out of NR as "We've secured the money, we now need to finalise the plans a get spades in the ground in the next 2 years, with a completion sometime in the middle of the next decade". The cynic in me still thinks that the optimist is putting too much faith in the DfT & it's minister, and that Brexit will bring all major projects like this to a halt....
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Trying to remain optimistic, I read the noises coming out of NR as "We've secured the money, we now need to finalise the plans a get spades in the ground in the next 2 years, with a completion sometime in the middle of the next decade". The cynic in me still thinks that the optimist is putting too much faith in the DfT & it's minister, and that Brexit will bring all major projects like this to a halt....

I'd merely cite the Hope Valley scheme that got through the DfT in 18 months (they say they aim to do it in 6) but was being planned at least as far back as 2005 and there won't be spades in ground before 2022 unless a miracle occurs. For the sake of rail transport connectivity across the North, and beyond, I hope 15/16 can finally get moving, but fear completion will still be a decade ahead.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I'd merely cite the Hope Valley scheme that got through the DfT in 18 months (they say they aim to do it in 6) but was being planned at least as far back as 2005 and there won't be spades in ground before 2022 unless a miracle occurs. For the sake of rail transport connectivity across the North, and beyond, I hope 15/16 can finally get moving, but fear completion will still be a decade ahead.

With full respect to the Hope Valley, the Castlefield corridor is a much more important project, so I would expect that timescales for the latter would be much tighter than the former.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
With full respect to the Hope Valley, the Castlefield corridor is a much more important project, so I would expect that timescales for the latter would be much tighter than the former.

We'll see. More important but a lot more complex. There'll certainly be more pressure to get it done, but in such a restricted city centre location, with multiple already unreliable live train services to work around it will be hard. The chaos experienced in the northwest with the recent electrification may be a portent for what will become. Again, I say I hope I'm wrong.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
We'll see. More important but a lot more complex. There'll certainly be more pressure to get it done, but in such a restricted city centre location, with multiple already unreliable live train services to work around it will be hard. The chaos experienced in the northwest with the recent electrification may be a portent for what will become. Again, I say I hope I'm wrong.

Well the space earmarked for Piccadilly P15/16 is still as available as it was when the original plans were drafted, and redesigning Oxford Road shouldn't be affected either. So the only major project change would be cost. And this is probably why NR have now given the section the "congested" label, meaning that funding becomes a priority and easier to justify costing changes. I feel that this project is closer than it has ever been to getting rubber stamped, however it still needs to cross the Minister's desk and get the final funding from DfT. And with the chaos that is Brexit looming large, the project's biggest threat is nothing to do with viability, engineering challenges or cost, but the shifting priorities of a failing government.

Right now, at best I'd say the project's chances are 50/50, but without BoJo's vanity Brexit calamity it would be nailed on.
 

Railman

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
97
I agree Manchester needs to think Big and dont think an expensive bodge will do. Go "Crossrail" allow east -West traffic to flow underneath the existing Castlefield corridor. Electric services or bi mode only with stations at Oxford Road and Piccadilly and out again clear of the existing main line junction areas. Higher speed alignments, allowing newer stock to utilise its better performance, and leave the existing 20mph style route to frieght and local stoppers.
Let the existing London scheme act as the guinea pig and sort out the technical issuesfor you. North West politicians need to up their game.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
As opposed to a Manc-Bahn fudge where a Manc-Bahn simply won't fit (i.e. on a city network built to deal to handle both local and long distance services), then you are right, I'd be going loop-the-expletive-loop. Because then you'd be forced to actually think how you might actually build such a thing without the giant, fun sized Crayolas... ;):E
Well my own perception of a Manc-Bahn involves simply stopping all the nearly-empty long distance trains going to the airport at all the intermediate stations.....

People dragging bags to the airport get their one-seat journey whilst we get a de-facto tube line through South Manchester, which drastically eases public transport provision on the congested roads of the area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top