Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Jozhua · 17 Oct 2019

Killingworth said:
TPE are, supposedly, resolving that over the next 12 months. We may then run into problems with lack of platform space at the Airport causing a back up of trains that may need to be terminated at...... ah! Leave half the train at Piccadilly.

Liverpool-Norwich is supposed to be 4, but often 2. At 4 it can cope for most of the day. If a TPE preceding service is cancelled or badly delayed even 4 is tight. If it is cancelled, or very late, a 3 car 185 from TPE is swamped. Northern get the backwash from this when a single Pacer in turn gets swamped. Smoothly integrated it's not. Passengers dash from platform to platform to find a train and possibly a seat.

Longer trains reliably running to time would quickly ease congestion as a virtuous circle developed. One day.

Yeah, unfortunately while capacity constraints exist, trains will get delayed. 13/14 are questionably workable if every single train arrives on time, but what they do best is exacerbate existing delays into complete catastrophes. Fixing 13/14 should help other areas of congestion and if those are further optimised, things might start to run on time.

Hope Valley is massively overcapacity passenger-wise, the journey times, unpleasantness and sheer cost of tickets make it hard to justify seeing my family in the East Midlands. I go back perhaps once every couple of months to see them because of this, and that's from someone who supposedly likes trains!

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 18 Oct 2019

Jozhua said:
Hope Valley is massively overcapacity passenger-wise, the journey times, unpleasantness and sheer cost of tickets make it hard to justify seeing my family in the East Midlands. I go back perhaps once every couple of months to see them because of this, and that's from someone who supposedly likes trains!

It will be interesting to see if the TPEs being run using longer trains help here. I think this route is likely to stick with 185s, but if everything was 6.185 that would really help.

Killingworth · 18 Oct 2019

Jozhua said:
Yeah, unfortunately while capacity constraints exist, trains will get delayed. 13/14 are questionably workable if every single train arrives on time, but what they do best is exacerbate existing delays into complete catastrophes. Fixing 13/14 should help other areas of congestion and if those are further optimised, things might start to run on time.

Hope Valley is massively overcapacity passenger-wise, the journey times, unpleasantness and sheer cost of tickets make it hard to justify seeing my family in the East Midlands. I go back perhaps once every couple of months to see them because of this, and that's from someone who supposedly likes trains!

Capacity is hard to control when we have multiple routes subject to delays throwing in unexpected loads at unpredictable times of the day.

Back in 2014/5 Network Rail predicted 50% passenger growth on the Sheffield-Manchester route by 2023. Anecdotal evidence suggests it may be almost there already. The same prediction was for it to have doubled in 20 years. That forecast is likely to be beaten by at least 10 years. Satisfying that demand by 3 separate services, all often late, from different platforms at opposite sides of Piccadilly keeps regular users on our toes. It baffles newcomers.

Calculating how to better deal with that demand when schemes like 15/16 take 20 years from start to finish is a nightmare.

Piccadilly has so many routes where users have a choice of trains. A few minutes saved many miles away can help trains arrive on time to ease the congestion. It needs concentration on multiple pinch points thereby ensuring more trains arrive into the Piccadilly area to time.

I note the 7.11 TPE from Sheffield has been 6 carriages for a couple of years, usually, and is already almost full after Dore. The 185s are only half way through their lives. Maybe they'll be needed in 9 coach formations before they're finished if demand continues.

Jozhua · 18 Oct 2019

Killingworth said:
Capacity is hard to control when we have multiple routes subject to delays throwing in unexpected loads at unpredictable times of the day.

Back in 2014/5 Network Rail predicted 50% passenger growth on the Sheffield-Manchester route by 2023. Anecdotal evidence suggests it may be almost there already. The same prediction was for it to have doubled in 20 years. That forecast is likely to be beaten by at least 10 years. Satisfying that demand by 3 separate services, all often late, from different platforms at opposite sides of Piccadilly keeps regular users on our toes. It baffles newcomers.

Calculating how to better deal with that demand when schemes like 15/16 take 20 years from start to finish is a nightmare.

Piccadilly has so many routes where users have a choice of trains. A few minutes saved many miles away can help trains arrive on time to ease the congestion. It needs concentration on multiple pinch points thereby ensuring more trains arrive into the Piccadilly area to time.

I note the 7.11 TPE from Sheffield has been 6 carriages for a couple of years, usually, and is already almost full after Dore. The 185s are only half way through their lives. Maybe they'll be needed in 9 coach formations before they're finished if demand continues.

It honestly makes me so disappointed how little is done despite clearly increasing passenger numbers.

15/16 should be done by now, especially after the Ordsall Chord was finished. 'Digital Railways' won't change the basic physics in that there is not enough time to board each train.

It's funny because while massive building projects are being completed in the surrounding areas of Manchester, the railways, especially Castlefield sat in the middle continue to stagnate. Why can everyone else build things for reasonable prices/timescales but not Network Rail?

Ianno87 · 18 Oct 2019

Jozhua said:
It's funny because while massive building projects are being completed in the surrounding areas of Manchester, the railways, especially Castlefield sat in the middle continue to stagnate. Why can everyone else build things for reasonable prices/timescales but not Network Rail?

Because "everyone else" isn't trying to re-build offices or flat whilst people try and continue to work/live in them.

Bletchleyite · 18 Oct 2019

Ianno87 said:
Because "everyone else" isn't trying to re-build offices or flat whilst people try and continue to work/live in them.

You would be able to build the vast majority of 15/16, just as they did with the Ordsall Chord, without affecting existing operations. You'd then need a blockade right at the end to connect it up.

cle · 18 Oct 2019

Ianno87 said:
Because "everyone else" isn't trying to re-build offices or flat whilst people try and continue to work/live in them.

Yes, although really it's developers and human greed. Versus a public service. The payback and incentivization to kick things off, execute and move on is much greater/

gazzaa2 · 18 Oct 2019

Killingworth said:
TPE are, supposedly, resolving that over the next 12 months. We may then run into problems with lack of platform space at the Airport causing a back up of trains that may need to be terminated at...... ah! Leave half the train at Piccadilly.

Liverpool-Norwich is supposed to be 4, but often 2. At 4 it can cope for most of the day. If a TPE preceeding service is cancelled or badly delayed even 4 is tight. If it is cancelled, or very late, a 3 car 185 from TPE is swamped. Northern get the backwash from this when a single Pacer in turn gets swamped. Smoothly integrated it's not. Passengers dash from platform to platform to find a train and possibly a seat.

Longer trains reliably runnng to time would quickly ease congestion as a virtuous circle developed. One day.

2 cars Liverpool-Norwich, or vice versa, is a nightmare at the weekend or at the peaks. 4 cars is mostly adequate but 2 is not really acceptable. I've waited for an hour at times for the next one rather than board a packed to the brim 2 cars. The TPE's do need more cars. 3 cars for a Manchester-Leeds express train is totally inadequate. The Liverpool-Newcastle serves huge UK destinations like Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds/York/Durham/Newcastle and needs the full quota of carriages.

As you say beyond that the problems start when you get cancellations and delays which happens all too frequently now.

The scrum at 14 at Manc Pic or the last carriage at Leeds is horrendous after line/train faults.

Jozhua · 18 Oct 2019

Ianno87 said:
Because "everyone else" isn't trying to re-build offices or flat whilst people try and continue to work/live in them.

There is a development called Hudson Yards in NYC (which faces many of the same issues with construction costs/timescales) which was built entirely over the top of a rail yard without once effecting operations. While some buildings are still being completed, the development over the rail yard is entirely complete just a few years after construction began.

I doubt Castlefield is anywhere near that level of complexity.

Bletchleyite said:
You would be able to build the vast majority of 15/16, just as they did with the Ordsall Chord, without affecting existing operations. You'd then need a blockade right at the end to connect it up.

Yes, it isn't really that awfully complicated, not too dissimilar to the remodeling at Derby done last year. The extra platforms were added while the rest of the station was still in use and footbridge modified.

Sure 15/16 are over a road, but the traffic can be diverted and rail traffic wouldn't need to be stopped for long to allow connecting up. Oxford Road is a bit more complicated, but isn't quite as pressing due to trains running express through it and frankly just adding a lift to Platform 1 would help a bit.

cle said:
Yes, although really it's developers and human greed. Versus a public service. The payback and incentivization to kick things off, execute and move on is much greater/

Yeah, you're probably right, perhaps some lessons could be taken from their books!

The Metrolink teams also seem to do a decent job at on time and on budget. Maybe if Network Rail had some competition and incentives in the construction areas, they might do a better job...

Lemmy99uk · 18 Oct 2019

Maybe portion working could help.

Some Anglo-Scottish TPE services used to attach a portion from Blackpool at Preston, saving a path on the Bolton corridor.

I don’t see why The Liverpool Glasgow services could not attach to an Airport portion at Preston, or the Windermere’s and Barrows attach and detach at Lancaster.

Admittedly it lengthens dwell times at platforms, but the paths saved should more than make up for it.

AndrewE · 23 Oct 2019

It's not the Castlefield corridor, but here's one urban railway investing in congestion-busting infrastructure (original includes video):
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/chicago-prepares-to-unclog-a-transit-bottleneck

Chicago’s Loop Elevated will always be with us: It’s a National Historic Landmark, and whatever plans the City of Chicago may once have had to replace it with subways have long since been permanently shelved. So Chicago transit patrons can expect to have to wait while trains clear grade crossings downtown for as far as anyone can see. But that doesn’t mean the Chicago Transit Authority can do nothing to remove choke points on its sprawling rapid transit system.

One of the biggest choke points, in fact, is set to disappear in a few years.

The Chicago Tribune reports that work will begin this fall on the largest modernization project in CTA history, a $2.1 billion reconstruction project that goes by the name of Red-Purple Modernization (RPM). The overall project, which will take a total of four years to complete, will modernize the signaling and train controls and rebuild four stations on the North Side elevated, on which Red, Purple and Brown line trains operate.

But the first and biggest project will rebuild the junction where the Brown Line meets the other two. Called the “Red-Purple Bypass” and also known informally as the Belmont Flyover, this reconstruction project will remove the 112-year-old series of at-grade switches northbound Brown Line trains must negotiate to reach the viaduct that takes them to Ravenswood.

In place of the at-grade crossings, the project will construct a flyover ramp...

Jozhua · 23 Oct 2019

AndrewE said:
It's not the Castlefield corridor, but here's one urban railway investing in congestion-busting infrastructure (original includes video):
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/chicago-prepares-to-unclog-a-transit-bottleneck

Love Chicago, pretty great subway system there!

I'd honestly say the L from my experience at least feels less busy than the Castlefield Corridor, especially 13/14 in regards to both the amount of trains and amount of passengers/overcrowding.

Hopefully we'll see a Northern/Manchester equivalent of the MTA's Fast Forward Plan or CTA modernisation. A big, regionwide plan tackling both small, quick fixes and larger, long term fixes would go a long way in helping.

We could really do with one team dedicated to working on the North West, independent of the government dedicated to getting our infrastructure and TOC's up to a functional, reliable state.

Perhaps "Fast-Forward North West", I'm not even kidding, this should happen!

Altfish · 24 Oct 2019

Jozhua said:
Love Chicago, pretty great subway system there!

I'd honestly say the L from my experience at least feels less busy than the Castlefield Corridor, especially 13/14 in regards to both the amount of trains and amount of passengers/overcrowding.

Hopefully we'll see a Northern/Manchester equivalent of the MTA's Fast Forward Plan or CTA modernisation. A big, regionwide plan tackling both small, quick fixes and larger, long term fixes would go a long way in helping.

We could really do with one team dedicated to working on the North West, independent of the government dedicated to getting our infrastructure and TOC's up to a functional, reliable state.

Perhaps "Fast-Forward North West", I'm not even kidding, this should happen!

Disclaimer, because I don't know the Chicago system but from watching the video, it is not like Manchester.
The biggest problem with the Castlefield corridor is the mix of trains; the chicago video shows all commuter type train.
Castlefield corridor carries commuter stoppers, semi-fast cross country, express and to cap it all 2 freight trains an hour.

Jozhua · 24 Oct 2019

Altfish said:
Disclaimer, because I don't know the Chicago system but from watching the video, it is not like Manchester.
The biggest problem with the Castlefield corridor is the mix of trains; the chicago video shows all commuter type train.
Castlefield corridor carries commuter stoppers, semi-fast cross country, express and to cap it all 2 freight trains an hour.

Yeah the Chicago L is just part of the CTA rapid transit system/subway. So they're an even more uniform fleet and have shorter dwell times than commuter rail services!

The mix of trains on Castlefield is definitely a factor, along with some lines picking up quite large delays due to distances involved. Castlefield is super useful, but just awful to use.

Allwinter_Kit · 28 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
...basically it's a presentation about what's wrong - and right - about 13/14, and to summarise - no seating areas on the platforms, cold and damp, overcrowded, pax not knowing where their train stops; solutions are to try to keep pax upstairs in the (so-called) "lounge" where there are seats (but not much warmer IMO!)...

Jozhua said:
The Transport Focus PowerPoint is great, pretty much nails most of the issues...

Too many passengers, platforms feel overcrowded, stressful and unsafe, also difficult to move around. The only benefit is the crowds keep you warm in winter...

The platforms are exposed and cold, freezing drafts blow through both the platforms and waiting area.

No seating on platforms and seating provision in the waiting area is a bit rubbish, many seats without backs and some wierd standing seats?

Rubbish amenities at 13/14 end, WhSmith has closed down, just a costa and some small toilets with 1 cubicle in the mens.

Difficult disabled acess, lifts are confusing and two lift journeys are needed to reach them, good luck finding the one up to the waiting area if you don't know the station... Also I've seen wheelchair bound people get stuck on the train past their stop due to crowding and assistance staff missing them.

Bantamzen said:
However the waiting area does need expanding, with perhaps better shielding from the cold in winter...

Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but did the mooted plans for 15/16 involve building a proper shed on the viaduct too to protect from the weather/improve facilities? I have only ever thought of it from an operational perspective, but given that those 2 (or eventually 4) platforms now handle a huge number of pax (more currently than Sheffield one member of staff told me) it seems ridiculous that such a cold, windswept and grotty platforms are allowed without improvement.

But I can't recall reading anywhere about what the plans are in terms of structures/facilities if they do ever build the new platforms. Or, for that matter, if they don't, whether the viaduct can support new external walls or anything to improve the environment.

Bantamzen · 28 Oct 2019

Allwinter_Kit said:
Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but did the mooted plans for 15/16 involve building a proper shed on the viaduct too to protect from the weather/improve facilities? I have only ever thought of it from an operational perspective, but given that those 2 (or eventually 4) platforms now handle a huge number of pax (more currently than Sheffield one member of staff told me) it seems ridiculous that such a cold, windswept and grotty platforms are allowed without improvement.

But I can't recall reading anywhere about what the plans are in terms of structures/facilities if they do ever build the new platforms. Or, for that matter, if they don't, whether the viaduct can support new external walls or anything to improve the environment.

A computer flythrough of the Oxford Road / Manchester Piccadilly plans were published in the Manchester Evening News:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/watch-how-piccadilly-oxford-road-7898576

(Apologies, the site isn't allowing me to embed the video).

You can see from around 1:34 that there is a new concourse above the proposed P15/16, connected to the existing concourse. So I imagine that this could be used in a similar fashion as P13/14 if needed.

Howardh · 28 Oct 2019

Bantamzen said:
A computer flythrough of the Oxford Road / Manchester Piccadilly plans were published in the Manchester Evening News:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/watch-how-piccadilly-oxford-road-7898576

(Apologies, the site isn't allowing me to embed the video).

You can see from around 1:34 that there is a new concourse above the proposed P15/16, connected to the existing concourse. So I imagine that this could be used in a similar fashion as P13/14 if needed.

The date that was published was 2014! And we're still no nearer. Still, in the meantime at least we got Brexit sorted.....

Bantamzen · 28 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
The date that was published was 2014! And we're still no nearer. Still, in the meantime at least we got Brexit sorted.....

Technically Brexit took / is taking / will take * longer as it was conceived before 2014....

(* Delete as appropriate)

However the design for the project probably hasn't changed much whilst its been sat on the Minister's desk, unlike Brexit which has changed so much nobody knows what it is supposed to look like any more....

HSTEd · 28 Oct 2019

What are the signalling constraints on the corridor?

Since the headways are obviously not as tight as those attained on things like the RER.
Even though the stock is inhomogenous, that shouldnt stop trains coming in close behind each other should it?

Djgr · 28 Oct 2019

unlike Brexit which has changed so much nobody knows what it is supposed to look like any more....

Did anyone, ever?

Howardh · 28 Oct 2019

Bantamzen said:
Technically Brexit took / is taking / will take * longer as it was conceived before 2014....

(* Delete as appropriate)

However the design for the project probably hasn't changed much whilst its been sat on the Minister's desk, unlike Brexit which has changed so much nobody knows what it is supposed to look like any more....

Well if Brexit ends up looking like platforms 13/14 we're in foir a cold, wet, miserable time and can't even go to the bog as I don't think there is one down there!

meanwhile - if this development (Picc, not Brexit) ever gets started, will we be able to access 13/14/15/16 from Fairfield street again?

Bantamzen · 28 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
Well if Brexit ends up looking like platforms 13/14 we're in foir a cold, wet, miserable time and can't even go to the bog as I don't think there is one down there!

Oh I suspect after Brexit you'll be pining for P13/14. They'll seem like luxury in comparison…

Howardh said:
meanwhile - if this development (Picc, not Brexit) ever gets started, will we be able to access 13/14/15/16 from Fairfield street again?

If the plans end up being anything close to the renders, both Piccadilly & Oxford Road will have southern entrances.

Howardh · 28 Oct 2019

Bantamzen said:
If the plans end up being anything close to the renders, both Piccadilly & Oxford Road will have southern entrances.

Good, it was ace when you descended the stars, turned right and your pub was opposite, and even better on your way back! Of course it would now have to be big enough to be gated and have lifts; but that shouldn't be a problem?

LOL The Irony · 28 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
and can't even go to the bog as I don't think there is one down there!

The 13/14 concourse to the right of the Costa hut.

FrodshamJnct · 28 Oct 2019

LOL The Irony said:
The 13/14 concourse to the right of the Costa hut.

And they’re free now!

js1000 · 28 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
meanwhile - if this development (Picc, not Brexit) ever gets started, will we be able to access 13/14/15/16 from Fairfield street again?

I got my hopes a few months ago when they renovated that stairwell a few months ago. I think it was to just bring it into line with regulations for emergency fire escapes.

bengley · 29 Oct 2019

Howardh said:
Well if Brexit ends up looking like platforms 13/14 we're in foir a cold, wet, miserable time and can't even go to the bog as I don't think there is one down there!

meanwhile - if this development (Picc, not Brexit) ever gets started, will we be able to access 13/14/15/16 from Fairfield street again?

You can access 13 and 14 from Fairfield Street now. The lift (although out of order temporarily the other day) is still in regular use - indeed I went from the taxi rank to 13 not too long ago.

Trackman · 30 Oct 2019

bengley said:
You can access 13 and 14 from Fairfield Street now. The lift (although out of order temporarily the other day) is still in regular use - indeed I went from the taxi rank to 13 not too long ago.

It's a massive shortcut, but I always forget about it!

Mogster · 30 Oct 2019

I did hope when the old Oxford Road platform tunnel was renovated that it would be open for general access but it’s not the case unfortunately. Just for the platform lifts. I was upping for a shortcut to the centre platforms.

Ianno87 · 30 Oct 2019

js1000 said:
I got my hopes a few months ago when they renovated that stairwell a few months ago. I think it was to just bring it into line with regulations for emergency fire escapes.

bengley said:
You can access 13 and 14 from Fairfield Street now. The lift (although out of order temporarily the other day) is still in regular use - indeed I went from the taxi rank to 13 not too long ago.

I'd have thought a new more prominent south-facing entrance would be a huge winner for regenerating the semi-dereliction on that side of the station.

Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member