Salford Central

John55 said:

I am at a loss to understand how the station can be busy when so few are recorded as using it. Is there any reason you can think of why this apparent contradiction exists? Is it that a few peak trains are busy and the rest unused at Salford Central or is some other factor at work?

Click to expand...

Someone more knowledgeable may be able to confirm, but it might be that a lot of people who use the station have "Manchester Stations" tickets meaning that the actual number of people using it is under-recorded. (a similar situation occured passenger usage figures at Wakefield Kirkgate station until recently).

John55 said:

Post electrification there will be 2 slow trains to Liverpool on the Chat Moss line that might stop at Salford and that is about it, and are you really expecting trans-pennine trains via the Ordsall Chord to stop at Victoria, Salford, Oxford Rd and Piccadilly?

Click to expand...

Well I am not saying that all trans pennine services should stop at Salford, but I wonder why not. All four Stations cover different areas of the Manchester & Salford mega city. In London no one would question such services, they would expect them.

I am at a loss to understand how the station can be busy when so few are recorded as using it. Is there any reason you can think of why this apparent contradiction exists? Is it that a few peak trains are busy and the rest unused at Salford Central or is some other factor at work?

Click to expand...

Well my answer is very simple, when I buy a ticket for Salford Central, Victoria, Deansgate, Oxford Road or Piccadilly, which ever station I ask for I get a ticket which says 'Manchester Stations'. Because of this how can anyone actually work out how many people use each station, either for srriving or leaving, never mind how many change trains there. And yes I have changed trains at Salford Central, the two times I have it was because I was told the wrong train at Victoria, where you can sometimes have up to three trains on a platform.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

Even with the poor quality of the station facilities for intending passengers at rail level and the reported platform height problems, the passenger figures at Salford Central for the 2007 to 2010 period show an increase of some 52.5% over that period, which does tally with the openings of new premises in the Spinnngfields complex. If the station received a similar platform level improvement similar to that at Blackburn, it would be an even more attractive proposition for intending passengers.Why do you think that retail outlets such as John Lewis spend very large amounts of money on the updating of their premises in order to make their stores even more attractive to prospective users. National Rail could learn something from organisations such as these.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Network Rail have already made comment on what they intend to spend their money on at Manchester Victoria railway station, which is why I made the suggestion that matters on that railway station should be discussed on another thread. By all means, there is a debate worth having with regard to that matter, but I would ask if you have read all the proposals published to date that concern the future of Manchester Victoria railway station and the development of the surrounding area, notwithstanding the increase in platform capacity for the Manchester Metrolink system.

Do not forget that the Ordsall Chord proposals will bring a different service pattern at Manchester Victoria with a passenger footfall to match. Are you saying that Network Rail have not taken this matter under consideration ?

As for the comment that I read on this forum concerning the rebuilding of Manchester Victoria railway station, how would this affect the rail service provision in the time of reconstruction and what would happen to the current through running facilities of the Manchester Metrolink system ?

Click to expand...

Salford Central

I have looked at the ORR station usage data in some detail. The increase in use of Salford Central mirrors the average increase in stations in Greater Manchester and does not appear to be exceptional.

Between 2003 and 2008 use of Salford Central increased by 33% (an average of 5.9% per year). For comparison I looked up the data for Rochdale, Bolton, Urmston, Eccles and Stockport and these stations showed increases of between 30 and 35% so Salford Central is typical of growth across Greater Manchester.

Between 2009 and 2011 Salford Central usage grew by 7% and the other stations had growth of between 2 and 21% so again Salford is not unusual.

Between 2008 and 2009 the collators of the station usage data managed to incorporate data from the use of PFE tickets that had previously not been included. This resulted in some very big changes in the usage figures in several of the PTE areas including Greater Manchester. In this year usage of Salford central increased by 78%, which sounds reasonable for a station with a high proportion of peak use and therefore weekly or longer PTE tickets. The other stations saw increases of between 20 and 45%, which is also reasonable, as they will have higher proportions of off peak travel. So I see no evidence of any additional increase in traffic at Salford Central due to the developments in Spinningfields since 2003.

Manchester Victoria

This is a truly terrible station that needs a lot more than the £25 - £30 million pounds Network Rail, the City Council and TGfM are spending on it. The improvements will benefit the 6.4 million rail users recorded in 2011, the millions of Metrolink users and the additional users when the electrification and Northern Hub changes are complete in 5 or 6 years.

When there is some money available I hope TGfM and NR will improve Salford Central but not ahead of any more deserving station in Greater Manchester or elsewhere.

lancastrian said:

Well I am not saying that all trans pennine services should stop at Salford, but I wonder why not. All four Stations cover different areas of the Manchester & Salford mega city. In London no one would question such services, they would expect them.

Well my answer is very simple, when I buy a ticket for Salford Central, Victoria, Deansgate, Oxford Road or Piccadilly, which ever station I ask for I get a ticket which says 'Manchester Stations'. Because of this how can anyone actually work out how many people use each station, either for srriving or leaving, never mind how many change trains there. And yes I have changed trains at Salford Central, the two times I have it was because I was told the wrong train at Victoria, where you can sometimes have up to three trains on a platform.

Click to expand...

On the South Western main line into London Waterloo not all trains stop at Wimbledon, or Clapham Junction, or Vauxhall and on the Great Northern not all trains stop at Finsbury Park.

The point about Manchester stations tickets is interesting and likely to cause some difficulty in sorting out the numbers. By any chance does the same thing happen in reverse from stations east/south of Victoria/Piccadilly with tickets issued to Salford stations for journeys to Manchester? As far as I am aware Manchester Stations does not include either of the Salford Stations so the tickets are issued in error but they are the same price so who cares except the statisticians.

The ORR does explain its methodology in the Stations Usage Report but does not mention anything for this circumstance.

Aye, the old dear is starting too suffer it has to be said, and she is in need of a face lift and general improval to its facilities. However, she seems to get by as she does and they obviously feel that 'other' stations in the region need investing in. I know many of the neglected stations on the Bolton-Wigan stretch have had been upgraded recently - ableight only basically.

John55 said:

I am bemused by your comment about Victoria. I understand it to mean we should spend what little money that is available on improving stations based on speculation as to their future use and disregard the passengers who are actually using the network today.

Click to expand...

I report as I see. Network Rail have made specific statements about Manchester Victoria railway station and items such the multi-million pound new roof and the total re-utilisation of the building, which, forgive me, I will not put into print here as the matter has been already reported ad nauseum.

All I can ask you to do is to read the published documentation with regard to the upgrading of Manchester Victoria railway station that Network Rail have produced already.

Finally, who are the "we" to whom you make reference to in the quote ?

Paul Sidorczuk said:

Finally, who are the "we" to whom you make reference to in the quote ?

Click to expand...

Paul, given the context, John means a group that includes me

John, the much-trumpeted upgrade will bring all of Victoria up to a common, dry, leak-free standard, and not much else. Metrolink's additional platform is all the new infrastructure you will see until the wires go up, and what follows for Hub will need binoculars to be visible from Victoria itself.

The adverse comment and discussion about Central being upgraded "speculatively" is a bit nebulous, as is comparing patronage growth based only on existing facilities and services!

If all trains that called at Victoria called at Central there would be a patronage shift to Central, particularly in the peak. This has the potential to get amplified further post-Chord when >90% of the NE-airports and 100% of the Liverpool-NE services are diverted via Vic, as Central is a more desireable business destination than Vic.

In summary, post-NWEP and post-Chord all the train patterns and route opportunities change. Adding platforms to Central would maximise the benefits.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

I report as I see. Network Rail have made specific statements about Manchester Victoria railway station and items such the multi-million pound new roof and the total re-utilisation of the building, which, forgive me, I will not put into print here as the matter has been already reported ad nauseum.

All I can ask you to do is to read the published documentation with regard to the upgrading of Manchester Victoria railway station that Network Rail have produced already.

Finally, who are the "we" to whom you make reference to in the quote ?

Click to expand...

The “we” I refer to is the British State and specifically British taxpayers who finance much of the spending on railways in this country via local and national government.

As things stand in Britain today there is a pot of money set aside for transport by the Treasury to be spent by the DfT and local authorities. Within that pot is the station improvement budget. For any station to have money spent on it there is a competition for funds. So when Manchester Victoria, for example, was selected for the £25 -30 million programme which is being financed by NR, MCC and TfGM other schemes lost out.

This is the only reason I mentioned Victoria as I consider spending money there is much better value than spending money at Salford Central.

However the point I was making was there is no evidence I can see that Salford Central has become more popular relative to other stations since the Spinningfields development has happened. If there were a serious level of untapped demand I would expect to see at least some evidence of atypical growth in the passenger usage recorded by the ORR statistics. I see none.

Once again I will say I am not against spending money on Salford Central, look at my first post in this thread. I would just like to see money spent were it is most needed and that is not at Salford Central at the moment.

Joseph_Locke said:

Paul, given the context, John means a group that includes me

John, the much-trumpeted upgrade will bring all of Victoria up to a common, dry, leak-free standard, and not much else. Metrolink's additional platform is all the new infrastructure you will see until the wires go up, and what follows for Hub will need binoculars to be visible from Victoria itself.

The adverse comment and discussion about Central being upgraded "speculatively" is a bit nebulous, as is comparing patronage growth based only on existing facilities and services!

If all trains that called at Victoria called at Central there would be a patronage shift to Central, particularly in the peak. This has the potential to get amplified further post-Chord when >90% of the NE-airports and 100% of the Liverpool-NE services are diverted via Vic, as Central is a more desireable business destination than Vic.

In summary, post-NWEP and post-Chord all the train patterns and route opportunities change. Adding platforms to Central would maximise the benefits.

Click to expand...

The current services for Salford Central are all the trains that serve Victoria and use the ex L&Y routes to Bolton & Wigan. There are 6 per hour off peak and 8 in the peak and of these 1 per hour runs through to Rochdale. There are 6 trains per hour that run from Victoria eastwards towards Rochdale and Stalybridge. A quick glance at the timetable shows the connections from the east to Salford Central are usually 7-10 minutes but can be 2 minutes for the fleet of foot, so I judge the likely traffic from the east to Salford should not be totally discouraged by this need to change.

From the above I doubt if through running from east of Victoria of existing services will give that much of a boost to passenger numbers at Salford Central. Whether there is demand for the Ordsall Chord services to stop at Salford I frankly doubt but time will be the judge of that.

As far as I can tell there has been a campaign to put platforms on the Chat Moss lines at Salford since Exchange closed. The belief of the PTE/ITA/TfGM in this can be clearly seen by the complete lack of action in the 40 years they have been in charge!

John55 said:

The “we” I refer to is the British State and specifically British taxpayers who finance much of the spending on railways in this country via local and national government......As far as I can tell there has been a campaign to put platforms on the Chat Moss lines at Salford since Exchange closed. The belief of the PTE/ITA/TfGM in this can be clearly seen by the complete lack of action in the 40 years they have been in charge!

Click to expand...

I note from some of your earlier postings that you indeed seem privy to much information not readily available to the travelling public at large. You do speak with great authority in your postings but your belief stated above that the British taxpayers have any direct specific say in how the monies are spent on transport in Britain is somewhat naive, for someone who is so precise in the layout of his arguments.

The local authority bodies that you make reference to above grew out of the Transport Act 1968 and the first created body in the region referred to was first created in the year 1969 under the title of SELNEC Passenger Transport Executive then from 1974 to 2011 Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) were the controlling body with other arms of associated bodies such as GMPTA, AGMA and GMITA. From 2011, there has now been three named bodies, all with different remit powers....these are GMCA, TfGM and TfGMC.

You make comment about how railway station infrastructure has not had the correct address made to it by the local transport controlling body for forty years, but may I be so bold as to remind you that in the period up to 2011, the budgetary spend available for all forms of local public transport comes from grant monies from Central Government, plus a precept of the community charge raised by the Commercial and Domestic rating systems. This is basically to ensure that all forms of perceived public transport receive what is deemed to be their requirements. Minor railway station improvements do fall into a certain remit. I was not aware that TfGM/GMCA could approach financial markets external to Central Government, without any constraint, to obtain the finance to effect large scale railway infrastructural project work. If so, I would be pleased to see your comments upon this specific matter.

However, large major railway station infrastructural programmes require a very great deal of finance and there are Central Government transport bodies in Britain who do have budgetary finance available, if a cost/benefit programme of works can be proved.

I am well aware that TfGM/GMCA will have increased powers under their new remit, but these are to cover traffic management schemes, etc, that were not part of their former remit.

Actually I can tell you first hand that many councillors in GMPTE/TFGM have been quite vocal about platforms at Central but likewise with their requests for a roof for the new steps at Crescent NR has simply replied that there isnt the money available. Likewise in the 90's there was commitment to open 10 new heavy rail stations in Greater Manchester. Only two got built (Airport and Horwich) when they commisioned feasability studies on the others they found while there was vocal local campaigns there simply wasnt enough demand to produce a positive BCR for the costs involved.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

I note from some of your earlier postings that you indeed seem privy to much information not readily available to the travelling public at large. You do speak with great authority in your postings but your belief stated above that the British taxpayers have any direct specific say in how the monies are spent on transport in Britain is somewhat naive, for someone who is so precise in the layout of his arguments.

The local authority bodies that you make reference to above grew out of the Transport Act 1968 and the first created body in the region referred to was first created in the year 1969 under the title of SELNEC Passenger Transport Executive then from 1974 to 2011 Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) were the controlling body with other arms of associated bodies such as GMPTA, AGMA and GMITA. From 2011, there has now been three named bodies, all with different remit powers....these are GMCA, TfGM and TfGMC.

You make comment about how railway station infrastructure has not had the correct address made to it by the local transport controlling body for forty years, but may I be so bold as to remind you that in the period up to 2011, the budgetary spend available for all forms of local public transport comes from grant monies from Central Government, plus a precept of the community charge raised by the Commercial and Domestic rating systems. This is basically to ensure that all forms of perceived public transport receive what is deemed to be their requirements. Minor railway station improvements do fall into a certain remit. I was not aware that TfGM/GMCA could approach financial markets external to Central Government, without any constraint, to obtain the finance to effect large scale railway infrastructural project work. If so, I would be pleased to see your comments upon this specific matter.

However, large major railway station infrastructural programmes require a very great deal of finance and there are Central Government transport bodies in Britain who do have budgetary finance available, if a cost/benefit programme of works can be proved.

I am well aware that TfGM/GMCA will have increased powers under their new remit, but these are to cover traffic management schemes, etc, that were not part of their former remit.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell your comments above on financing railway projects is a much longer version of my statement which said; “there is a pot of money set aside for transport by the Treasury to be spent by the DfT and local authorities” and note I didn’t say the taxpayer said how the money was spent I said the DfT and local authorities did.

I think the PTAs became responsible for the local railways in the 1972/3 period although SELNEC came into existence in 1969 but since then, a period of 40 years, the transport authority in Greater Manchester has been able to spend the money it has on the local railway network as it wishes. If one compares the state of railway stations in Merseyside with Greater Manchester it can readily be seen there is a difference in the attitude of the respective ITAs/PTEs. But if GM wish to spend their money on other things then so be it.

I notice for example that the new tram stop at Central Park has had a remarkable amount of money spent on it to provide shelter from the elements (but not from the sun shining from the east, west or south or the wind and rain from the southwest). Perhaps the money spent there could have been better spent on the platforms at Salford Central.

I visited Salford Central yesterday (rather than passing by) and I have to say I don’t think there is much wrong with the station. The main need is for a coat of paint and as already pointed out the platforms are a bit low though not exceptionally so. I was surprised given the earlier comments that the platforms at Salford Central are nothing like as bad as those at Clapham Junction in London or several other stations I have been recently.

The passenger numbers while I was there (13:00 to 14:00) were very low but actually higher than I expected with 70 people boarding or alighting the 12 trains but if 18 hadn’t got on one Southport train it really would have been poor.

I have no access to any information that is not in the public domain but I do try to research subjects before posting.

John55 said:

The “we” I refer to is the British State and specifically British taxpayers who finance much of the spending on railways in this country via local and national government.

Click to expand...

I have no wish to enter into long and acrimonious discussions with you over this matter. It was your quote above that made reference to British taxpayers and their financing of "much of the spending on railways in this country", then of the following qualifying rider "via local and national government", that seemed to me on the first reading that the said taxpayers had some input into the decision on what the accumulated finance was spent upon.

I just now wonder why you chose to highlight the matter of the British taxpayers as a specific point in that particular posting. If for one moment, I thought that you were introducing a politically based dimension into the matter, I would have most certainly abstained from making comment upon the matter.

John55 said:

As far as I can tell your comments above on financing railway projects is a much longer version of my statement which said; “there is a pot of money set aside for transport by the Treasury to be spent by the DfT and local authorities” and note I didn’t say the taxpayer said how the money was spent I said the DfT and local authorities did.

I think the PTAs became responsible for the local railways in the 1972/3 period although SELNEC came into existence in 1969 but since then, a period of 40 years, the transport authority in Greater Manchester has been able to spend the money it has on the local railway network as it wishes. If one compares the state of railway stations in Merseyside with Greater Manchester it can readily be seen there is a difference in the attitude of the respective ITAs/PTEs. But if GM wish to spend their money on other things then so be it.

I notice for example that the new tram stop at Central Park has had a remarkable amount of money spent on it to provide shelter from the elements (but not from the sun shining from the east, west or south or the wind and rain from the southwest). Perhaps the money spent there could have been better spent on the platforms at Salford Central.

Click to expand...

They may ultimately be paid for by the same people but aren't these under different ownership? Salford Central AFAIK is owned by Network Rail and managed by Northern Rail, as is Manchester Victoria. Central Park Metrolink will be owned by TfGM along with the rest of the Metrolink infrastructure. Different people, different pots of money.

John55 said:

As far as I can tell your comments above on financing railway projects is a much longer version of my statement which said; “there is a pot of money set aside for transport by the Treasury to be spent by the DfT and local authorities” and note I didn’t say the taxpayer said how the money was spent I said the DfT and local authorities did.

I think the PTAs became responsible for the local railways in the 1972/3 period although SELNEC came into existence in 1969 but since then, a period of 40 years, the transport authority in Greater Manchester has been able to spend the money it has on the local railway network as it wishes. If one compares the state of railway stations in Merseyside with Greater Manchester it can readily be seen there is a difference in the attitude of the respective ITAs/PTEs. But if GM wish to spend their money on other things then so be it.

I notice for example that the new tram stop at Central Park has had a remarkable amount of money spent on it to provide shelter from the elements (but not from the sun shining from the east, west or south or the wind and rain from the southwest). Perhaps the money spent there could have been better spent on the platforms at Salford Central.

I visited Salford Central yesterday (rather than passing by) and I have to say I don’t think there is much wrong with the station. The main need is for a coat of paint and as already pointed out the platforms are a bit low though not exceptionally so. I was surprised given the earlier comments that the platforms at Salford Central are nothing like as bad as those at Clapham Junction in London or several other stations I have been recently.

The passenger numbers while I was there (13:00 to 14:00) were very low but actually higher than I expected with 70 people boarding or alighting the 12 trains but if 18 hadn’t got on one Southport train it really would have been poor.

I have no access to any information that is not in the public domain but I do try to research subjects before posting.

Click to expand...

They only have direct access to small projects funds, under £2m small stations and under £5m mid sized stations project pots. Any bigger project they have to apply to NR for funding like everyone else in the country. Merseytravel on the other hand has devolved spending though its a blessing and a curse as they will struggle to self finance the rolling stock replacement.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

I have no wish to enter into long and acrimonious discussions with you over this matter. It was your quote above that made reference to British taxpayers and their financing of "much of the spending on railways in this country", then of the following qualifying rider "via local and national government", that seemed to me on the first reading that the said taxpayers had some input into the decision on what the accumulated finance was spent upon.

I just now wonder why you chose to highlight the matter of the British taxpayers as a specific point in that particular posting. If for one moment, I thought that you were introducing a politically based dimension into the matter, I would have most certainly abstained from making comment upon the matter.

Click to expand...

I think you are reading too much into my idiosyncratic way of expressing myself.

There was according to the ORR a subsidy of £3.96 billion to the railways in 2010-11. I was attempting to make the point that spending money on station refurbishment needs some of that subsidy and as there isn't a bottomless purse some form of cost benefit analysis needs to be done to ensure the money is spent to best advantage.

As far as I am aware the only issue is you, and some others on the forum, think it is worth spending quite a lot of money on improving Salford Central and I think the money could be better spent elsewhere. And isn't that discussion what this forum is for?

One of the benefits of this is that I now know I am out of date on the ITA/TfGM funding arrangements and need to find out a bit more.

John55 said:

I think you are reading too much into my idiosyncratic way of expressing myself.

There was according to the ORR a subsidy of £3.96 billion to the railways in 2010-11. I was attempting to make the point that spending money on station refurbishment needs some of that subsidy and as there isn't a bottomless purse some form of cost benefit analysis needs to be done to ensure the money is spent to best advantage.

As far as I am aware the only issue is you, and some others on the forum, think it is worth spending quite a lot of money on improving Salford Central and I think the money could be better spent elsewhere. And isn't that discussion what this forum is for?

One of the benefits of this is that I now know I am out of date on the ITA/TfGM funding arrangements and need to find out a bit more.

Click to expand...

Some of us are a little more sure than just "thinking" it is worth it; however we can't share our evidence any more than you can provide evidence to support your opinion (that it isn't).

Short-termism got us into the current mess - the last thing we need now is more closed-mind thinking when it comes to investment in the railway (and light rail) system(s).

That said, what isn't written down anywhere in anyone's funding arrangements is that the grown-ups in the policy making houses have a radically different view of the world compared with the attitude prevalent say, 10 years ago. Major transport infrastruture projects are being tested for projected levels of service 10+ years hence and the benefits measured using the same economic methods and models used in every other transport realm. This is leading to the conclusion that speculation is very very good if it can be added to the core business of addressing an identified need.

If adding platforms to Central is going to cost £10m (say) as part of Hub but £30m (say) later then I am certain that much thought is being given to finding the £10m early.

mikemcniven said:

195114 moved from Barrow C.S. to Newton Heath TMD today on 5J00, I captured and recorded it at Salford Central. A warning with the video, the squeaky breaks are VERY loud, watch on low volume

Northern 195114 by Mike McNiven, on Flickr

Click to expand...

New train but a shame about the crummy station at Salford Central.

geoffk said:

New train but a shame about the crummy station at Salford Central.

Click to expand...

Surely it's time for something to be done about that awful station.
Sam

Bungle965 said:

Surely it's time for something to be done about that awful station.
Sam

Click to expand...

Quite. Even the new glass bit downstairs is a mess.

geoffk said:

New train but a shame about the crummy station at Salford Central.

Click to expand...

I know why refurbishment of Salford Central wasn't part of the upgrade/electrification/Ordsal Cord package but it is really feeble.

a_c_skinner said:

I know why refurbishment of Salford Central wasn't part of the upgrade/electrification/Ordsal Cord package but it is really feeble.

Click to expand...

It was supposed to be having two (or three?) additional platforms serving the realigned Chat Moss line but the two current ones are very low and need at least a Harrington Hump. The station may have been improved at street level but surely something better is needed at a city centre location which also serves the Spinningfields area of Manchester. (Sorry getting off topic).

I understood this to be happening once it was all wired up - and at the time, the pedestrian bridge over the canal was under construction too. It's absolutely the best station for Spinningfields and the ex-Granada site - WPP are consolidating there too, and it's all taken off in a big way.

Perhaps a rename (Spinningfields?) might help some of the stigma and association - not necessarily snobbery, but basic proximity.

I used Salford Central on Tuesday and the ramp up to Platform 2 appears to have some structural issues with the supports:

by Chris Davis, on Flickr

by Chris Davis, on Flickr

by Chris Davis, on Flickr

by Chris Davis, on Flickr

The final picture does give a bonus view of a puddle within the station building....

cle said:

Perhaps a rename (Spinningfields?) might help some of the stigma and association - not necessarily snobbery, but basic proximity.

Click to expand...

There is the not insignificant geographical matter that the areas in which Spinningfields is so situate is in Manchester, whereas Salford Central railway station is on the other side of the River Irwell in Salford.

Before we know it, there will be those who wish to give another geographical name to the Roman Catholic Salford Cathedral.

cle said:

I understood this to be happening once it was all wired up - and at the time, the pedestrian bridge over the canal was under construction too. It's absolutely the best station for Spinningfields and the ex-Granada site - WPP are consolidating there too, and it's all taken off in a big way.

Perhaps a rename (Spinningfields?) might help some of the stigma and association - not necessarily snobbery, but basic proximity.

Click to expand...

I think it being a manky station is more of an issue - it needs knocking down and rebuilding from scratch as a proper modern station which people might then actually choose over Vic which is also a highly nasty station.

Some platforms for Chat Moss services would go some way to improving its usefulness also.

Gareth said:

Some platforms for Chat Moss services would go some way to improving its usefulness also.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a sensible part of such a development, as well as platforms for the Ordsall Chord lines. Victoria is not only a dump but quite crowded. If they could create something like the modern Reading it would be well-used because people would choose to use it over Victoria, at least for interchange (though it's also near a fair bit of Manchester too). Surely England's second/third city (depends who you ask!) deserves that. Mind you if they can't be bothered building Picc 15/16...

Xenophon PCDGS said:

There is the not insignificant geographical matter that the areas in which Spinningfields is so situate is in Manchester, whereas Salford Central railway station is on the other side of the River Irwell in Salford.

Click to expand...

That may be so, but in practice it predominantly serves that side of Manchester City Centre and the offices etc in Salford between the station and the Irwell.

For another example, Birmingham International is in Solihull.

At busy periods it's often quicker to get off at Salford Central and walk across into Manchester rather than fight to get out of Victoria and walk the shorter distance. This can also be the case if coming from the east

Call it Salford Spinningfields and watch loads of people look at the map on the media announcements and go “Ooh that’s actually pretty convenient”
Is there enough room for long enough platforms for near future growth?

Meerkat said:

Is there enough room for long enough platforms for near future growth?

Click to expand...

As previously discussed, the first two issues with the platforms are (1) height and (2) number. Once there are platforms on all lines at something near to train height, then it will be time to discuss length.