If you could make just one infrastructure improvement in Manchester…

[Bartsimho]

No chance. Why would you break interchange?

Closing Deansgate and expanding Oxford Road with a central turnback is generally the quoted proposal for improving that.

I was think of an Out of Station interchange as it a 12 minute walk between the stations and would add more capacity to the line

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was think of an Out of Station interchange as it a 12 minute walk between the stations and would add more capacity to the line

No, it's an absolutely silly idea. If you were going to move services from Picc to free up capacity, send them to Vic, there's at least decent public transport between the two.

 

[Bartsimho]

No, it's an absolutely silly idea. If you were going to move services from Picc to free up capacity, send them to Vic, there's at least decent public transport between the two.

But the route in is from the South and East so from Stockport, Macclesfield, Sheffield over the Peak line and where they are continuing on towards Warrington and Liverpool as if they terminate they can continue to do so at Piccadilly. Also Stoke and Crewe trains can't route into Victoria due to no East to West line into Manchester North of Crewe

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the route in is from the South and East so from Stockport, Macclesfield, Sheffield over the Peak line and where they are continuing on towards Warrington and Liverpool as if they terminate they can continue to do so at Piccadilly. Also Stoke and Crewe trains can't route into Victoria due to no East to West line into Manchester North of Crewe

Have you ever been to Manchester? I'd suggest you go then try again. It's a nonsensical idea. You would be breaking the one of the top 5 most significant interchanges in England. (Third behind Birmingham New St I'd say, if you consider London as one thing).

 

[Halifaxlad]

The north side of the station is where HS2 is going. It's not spare. Were this not the case I'd be suggesting a P0 and P-1 (!) as part of my Ardwick chord proposal.



Why? What's wrong with the existing concourse? I think it's on a par with Kings Cross as the best in the country, and one of the better ones worldwide.

Victoria needs a concourse (I'd argue it doesn't really have one, just a manky corridor down the side of the tramstop with a couple of shops and old bits in it) but I'd not put that under "infrastructure improvements" but to me there are only really two things wrong with Piccadilly as a station - P13/14 and almost everything about them, and the multiple gatelines which should really be replaced with a single one.



From 13/14? Where would you put that where it wouldn't reduce passenger capacity on the platform? A second lift would probably be better insurance. And isn't/wasn't there a chairlift on one of the stairways?

HS2 hasn't been built yet, ideally it wants to be built underground. HS2 is also the reason why I said either get rid or relocate.

As for the concourse, nothing! I would just add another onto it leading onto P13/14. Got to say myself I always enjoy travelling via Picadilly!

I accidentally refered to 13/14 as 11/12

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 hasn't been built yet, ideally it wants to be built underground.

Not happening, however some people on here think it should. It'll be above-ground platforms on the car park to the north of Picc main trainshed, so that space is not available for a P0 and P-1.

 

[Bartsimho]

Have you ever been to Manchester? I'd suggest you go then try again. It's a nonsensical idea. You would be breaking the one of the top 5 most significant interchanges in England. (Third behind Birmingham New St I'd say, if you consider London as one thing).

If we can count London as one Interchange than an Interchange between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the same as from Kings Cross to Euston in time between stations. There could even be an in station Interchange created with a subway between the stations due to their proximity

 

[zwk500]

If we can count London as one Interchange than an Interchange between Piccadilly and Oxford Road is the same as from Kings Cross to Euston in time between stations. There could even be an in station Interchange created with a subway between the stations due to their proximity

We don't count London as one interchange though - Only King's Cross & St Pancras are treated as a single complex (and even then not for all trains). Breaking Piccadilly and Oxford Road would be akin to breaking Thameslink at St Pancras or Crossrail at Paddington. It's madness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We don't count London as one interchange though - Only King's Cross & St Pancras are treated as a single complex (and even then not for all trains). Breaking Piccadilly and Oxford Road would be akin to breaking Thameslink at St Pancras or Crossrail at Paddington. It's madness.

I was only counting it as that for the purposes of emphasizing its importance, as the third main interchange hub in England after London and Birmingham. I agree it's a stupid idea!

I mean, you could reopen Central for all services from the west (the building's still there, as are the approaches, and you could just build a conference centre in a big shed on wasteland in Ardwick or something to replace its present role) and get rid of Castlefield, but the inconvenience of lost interchange there would not make that a good plan even if it would be a very easy one to implement compared with other such major projects.

 

[HSTEd]

I mean, you could reopen Central for all services from the west (the building's still there, as are the approaches, and you could just build a conference centre in a big shed on wasteland in Ardwick or something to replace its present role) and get rid of Castlefield, but the inconvenience of lost interchange there would not make that a good plan even if it would be a very easy one to implement compared with other such major projects.

The cost of that is probably going to approach that to blast down the couple of dozen or so buildings you need to force four tracks through Castlefield! [And I know that is specifically forbidden by the terms of reference of the thread!]

 

[Philip]

I think the chance to create a fast route from Stockport to Victoria was lost when the Ashton Moss Jn to Droylesden Jn line was closed, leaving just today's very slow route via Crowthorn Jn and Ashton Moss South and North Jns. I suppose the rationale at the time was that the latter route also gave access towards Stalybridge avoiding Guide Bridge from Ashton Moss South Jn to OA&GBJn and the the direct line to Droylesden was a duplicate — but then that eastwards curve was closed, leaving just the westwards route for which the Droylesden line would have been a much better alternative.

But even if the Denton Jn to Droylesden line still existed and even if it were possible to upgrade it to, say, 60 mph all the way, I think it would still be a significantly slower route from Stockport to Salford Crescent via Victoria than Stockport to Salford Crescent via Piccadilly 13/14.

Of course, now we have the marvellous Ordsall Chord you could always have a London-Manchester Victoria-Manchester Piccadilly-London service using an improved East Manchester connection .....

We might as well aim for an upgrade to 90 or 100mph for the Denton line if it is possible, along with electrification. That would turn it into a good WCML alternative for long distance trains to run into Victoria, alongside the normal route through Levenshulme, as well as hopefully better connections to Stockport & beyond from the Bolton/Chorley and Atherton lines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want the Denton line to be useful, relocate the stations to useful places (neither is particularly well sited) and run a local service (or even Metrolink) on it.

 

[Philip]

If you want the Denton line to be useful, relocate the stations to useful places (neither is particularly well sited) and run a local service (or even Metrolink) on it.

If it was speeded up sufficiently then it would be suitable as an alternative route for faster, longer distance services.

 

[HSTEd]

That's an awful long way around just to force more people to use Victoria......

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's an awful long way around just to force more people to use Victoria......

And if you were putting more services into Vic, you'd want to improve it a bit. How about.......

(I know, the thread doesn't allow it!)

 

[Philip]

That's an awful long way around just to force more people to use Victoria......

It's hardly well out of the way and this idea is on the basis of a huge line speed improvement, plus it would bring the benefit of direct trains between Salford/Bolton and Stockport, which have recently been lost. It's not very good having no direct trains between these places although I suppose the reason for it, to reduce conflict across the Piccadilly throat, is logical.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Not happening, however some people on here think it should. It'll be above-ground platforms on the car park to the north of Picc main trainshed, so that space is not available for a P0 and P-1.

Well just get rid of P11 & 12 then, which are probably about the equivalent of any of the other platforms.

Considering HS2 will free up capacity within the existing train shed loosing
P11 & 12 won't matter too much.

 

[Bantamzen]

Here's a few of my thoughts, save nuking the entire city and reducing the carbon footprint of the eternal debate about Manchester...

• Increase the coverage of Metrolink to the south to closely mirror the Styal Line to reduce the need for cross city commuter trains. Also expand to the north to include Salford and to allow more connectivity to Metrolink from the north and north west without needing to use major stations.
• Reduce traffic flows around the city centre Metrolink to improve performance through the area and reduce transit times.
• More multi-modal ticketing, for example a Manchester all stations includes use of Metrolink within the city centre.
• Concentrate north west services mainly through Victoria towards Rochdale and Stalybridge, with CLC, Liverpool, Scotland, north east services concentrated through Oxford Road / Picadilly towards the airport along with some selected services from Blackpool.
• Provide better provision from Picadilly P13/14 to Metrolink if at all possible.

In all honesty looking in from outside a lot of Manchester's issues could be relatively easily solved by putting it's good tram network to more use for Manchester commuters by serving a wider area, whilst still allowing the airport to grow both it's traffic as well as regional rail traffic towards it. Reducing car access and increasing multi-modal ticketing will encourage more use of a growing Metrolink as will better interchange options away from the big stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Increase the coverage of Metrolink to the south to closely mirror the Styal Line to reduce the need for cross city commuter trains. Also expand to the north to include Salford and to allow more connectivity to Metrolink from the north and north west without needing to use major stations.

Obviously it already runs to East Didsbury, but there is a reasonably good case for sticking trams down Kingsway to replace the local stations on the Styal Line bar Gatley and Heald Green, yes. In essence it'd be 4-tracking the route, just putting it down the road as there's no space by the railway itself. It's a dual carriageway most of the way, so can just be reduced to one car lane each way. Don't like the congestion? Park up and go in by tram.

While it's not the most direct route, an option would be to send it round the Fallowfield Loop to get into the city rather than it getting clogged up on the single carriageway section north of Levenshulme. Or even up Oxford/Wilmslow Road, with other traffic banned for most of the day.

 

[Philip]

Not everyone wants to use the tram; it is slow and has anti-social behaviour problems. Why make things even more difficult for car owners by reducing carriageway size? It would just increase congestion throughout the whole region.

 

[zwk500]

Not everyone wants to use the tram; it is slow and has anti-social behaviour problems. Why make things even more difficult for car owners by reducing carriageway size? It would just increase congestion throughout the whole region.

The future of the planet isn't a good enough reason to make things difficult for car owners?

 

[Dr Day]

Slightly off-topic, but I would hope that if the inter-TOC revenue in-fighting could disappear (which it doesn't appear to have even without TOCs taking revenue risk) the removal of the underlying requirement for everyone to have a share of the lucrative Piccadilly-Airport revenue could enable a more UK-plc optimised solution to the Castlefield conundrum.

 

[Philip]

The future of the planet isn't a good enough reason to make things difficult for car owners?

There are political and virtue-signaling elements to 'save the planet', but you can't expect people to just give up their cars or not make as much use of the car they're paying a lot of money to keep on the road, just to allow room for a public transport system a lot of people don't want to use. It's also unreasonable to have roads being clogged up by a separate transport system when drivers are paying road tax for the use of the road; perhaps the DVLA tax should in future come with a provision of discounted Metrolink travel for the roads in Greater Manchester which are shared by cars and trams?

The focus and public transport investment in Greater Manchester should be fully focused on improving and expanding the rail network, not the tram network.

 

[zwk500]

There are political and virtue-signaling elements to 'save the planet', but you can't expect people to just give up their cars or not make as much use of the car they're paying a lot of money to keep just to allow room for a public transport system a lot of people don't want to use. It's also unreasonable to have roads being clogged up by a separate transport system when drivers are paying road tax for the use of the road; perhaps the DVLA tax should in future come with a provision of discounted Metrolink travel for the roads in Greater Manchester which are shared by cars and trams?

The focus and public transport investment in Greater Manchester should be fully focused on improving and expanding the rail network, not the tram network.

1. It's not ROAD Tax, it's CAR Tax. I absolutely hate this misconception. The roads belong to all forms of transport, not just cars.
2. The substitution of 1 lane in each direction for a tramway is about the most obvious case for traffic calming I can think of. The road space is already there, it's clearly a major thoroughfare and studies have repeatedly shown that having more lanes doesn't help congestion.

I also think Greater Manchester should move to the zonal charging system a la TfL, with a Travelcard equivalent ticket for travel from outside Manchester in as well. (If it hasn't already)

 

[Philip]

1. It's not ROAD Tax, it's CAR Tax. I absolutely hate this misconception. The roads belong to all forms of transport, not just cars.

The tax goes towards the upkeep of the roads (or should do). That's why I refer to it as road tax.

2. The substitution of 1 lane in each direction for a tramway is about the most obvious case for traffic calming I can think of. The road space is already there, it's clearly a major thoroughfare and studies have repeatedly shown that having more lanes doesn't help congestion.

Studies can be manipulated to suit an agenda. Comparison by experience is the most reliable evidence in my opinion and I can assure you that reducing the A6 to one lane for cars (and a separate one for buses) from Salford Crescent into Manchester has made the congestion a lot worse. The focus should be to improve the rail network (including electrifying the remaining diesel routes) and improving the road system for vehicles and buses. I don't agree with the way so many tram lines have taken over the road network in the city centre; again it has just increased congestion and the increased pollution this causes.

 

[tbtc]

it would bring the benefit of direct trains between Salford/Bolton and Stockport, which have recently been lost. It's not very good having no direct trains between these places

We need to get away from this culture of “everywhere needs to have a direct train to everywhere” - its clogging Manchester’s railways up

Look at how efficient some routes with simple service patterns are, how many trains you can fit in a two track railway - Castlefield struggles with ten trains an hour yet the Elizabeth Line can accommodate a lot more - but if we have to maintain all of the inefficient links then don’t be surprised when the timetable falls over

Or, to look at it another way, Thameslink and Crossrail manage twice as many services an hour as Castlefield, yet it’s the Manchester route that apparently needs four tracking because it can’t cope with the current infrastructure , yet the two London routes seem fine with just double track

It's also unreasonable to have roads being clogged up by a separate transport system when drivers are paying road tax for the use of the road

So, if we’d abolished Road Tax in, say, 1937, we could impose trams on the roads without protest?

Great

 

[Nottingham59]

What one infrastructure improvement would singularly do the most to increase capacity through Manchester?

I would enable access to Trafford Park railfreight terminal from the West, and remove all daytime freight paths through Castlefield.

Access from the East could be on reinstated orbital lines through Timperley and Carrington. This report has more details: https://railfuture.org.uk/display2302

 

[zwk500]

How do you get from Flixton to Carrington?

 

[The Planner]

I would enable access to Trafford Park railfreight terminal from the West, and remove all daytime freight paths through Castlefield.

Access from the East could be on reinstated orbital lines through Timperley and Carrington. This report has more details: https://railfuture.org.uk/display2302
View attachment 127195

Incredibly expensive for what it does. It would be cheaper to relocate the freight terminal as I suggested.

 

[Philip]

We need to get away from this culture of “everywhere needs to have a direct train to everywhere” - its clogging Manchester’s railways up

Look at how efficient some routes with simple service patterns are, how many trains you can fit in a two track railway - Castlefield struggles with ten trains an hour yet the Elizabeth Line can accommodate a lot more - but if we have to maintain all of the inefficient links then don’t be surprised when the timetable falls over

Or, to look at it another way, Thameslink and Crossrail manage twice as many services an hour as Castlefield, yet it’s the Manchester route that apparently needs four tracking because it can’t cope with the current infrastructure , yet the two London routes seem fine with just double track

We don't need every place having a direct service to every other place, but when there is a clear demand for the link; such as Bolton and Salford to Stockport which are all large settlements within the same metropolis, then the priority should be to keep or restore these links. If an upgraded Denton line doesn't provide any benefits, then I suggest removing other more unnecessary conflicts across the Piccadilly throat to free up the required space to reinstate a half hourly link from Salford to Stockport. The South TPE service is one of them; re-route it via Romiley so that it can terminate on the low-numbered Piccadilly platforms; then reinstate the Northern semi-fast Man Airport-Liverpool via Warrington to run in it's place.
Perhaps the Chester via Northwich could run into Piccadilly 14 and then carry on as either the CLC stopping train or a service via Bolton/Atherton to further reduce conflicts across the throat? Crewe-Manchester Piccadilly could become Crewe-Piccadilly-Blackpool, taking the path of one of the Airport-Blackpool services.