Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station - why do some people insist it shoul be an underground through station?

[Nottingham59]

ECML or new build?

The IRP is recommending an upgrade to the existing ECML

 

[FGWHST43009]

The IRP is recommending an upgrade to the existing ECML

I'd like to know how they're going to get those journey times they've advertised, 140mph doesn't make much of a difference

 

[HSTEd]

I'd like to know how they're going to get those journey times they've advertised, 140mph doesn't make much of a difference

Probably through "innnovation" or some other meaningless buzzword that somehow allows the market to overcome physics.

Or more likely by deleting all stops south of Doncaster.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'd like to know how they're going to get those journey times they've advertised

It doesn't matter. Boris and Sunak have just kicked the can a bit further down the road to avoid paying for HS2 beyond the East Midlands. By the time they are faced with the reality of un-achievable journey times, politicial priorities will have moved on.

 

[Gareth]

Sorry but what are you actually driving at here?

You're saying there are 3 'second cities' as if Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds are being prioritised by the government over Liverpool. Meanwhile I am saying the government are prioritising linking London, Manchester and Birmingham, but somehow you're disputing what I'm saying. Therefore it assumes that you believe Leeds is getting priority over Liverpool, but I don't see how. Liverpool is actually getting a better deal than Leeds from HS2 and I fail to see how you can't see that is the case, unless you're refusing to look at what Leeds and Liverpopl are getting.

HS2 is just one thing. And yes, Leeds was prioritised over Liverpool, which is why the Y-network existed in the first place and is still there, albeit in a largely compromised form. The Leeds leg was nobbled to save the Manchester leg. Yes, UKplc prefers Manchester over Leeds (and Birmingham, for that matter) but when it comes to state boondoggles, including largely symbolic "let's move it out London" things like the Channel 4 pseudo-relocation, there's only the same three places ever seriously considered.

If Liverpool gets a better deal than Leeds due to the downscoping of HS2, then it's a happy accident. It's the same for any town that isn't London or one of the three "second cities". It's just down to luck. It doesn't change Liverpool & Leeds' standing with the UK government. Leeds is considered roughly similar to Manchester, Liverpool is as superfluous as Burnley, Goole or Telford. It's standard centralised misrule by a country that doesn't really know what to do with anywhere outside of the South East. And it's why we need quite radical political decentralisation.

 

[swt_passenger]

Probably through "innnovation" or some other meaningless buzzword that somehow allows the market to overcome physics.

Or more likely by deleting all stops south of Doncaster.

2019 just called and suggested “smart timetabling”…

 

[Bald Rick]

2019 just called and suggested “smart timetabling”…

very well done sir!

 

[swt_passenger]

very well done sir!

I hoped you’d be amused…

 

[The Planner]

I hoped you’d be amused…

Bravo, though the buzzword now would be "agile"

 

[Purple Orange]

HS2 is just one thing. And yes, Leeds was prioritised over Liverpool, which is why the Y-network existed in the first place and is still there, albeit in a largely compromised form. The Leeds leg was nobbled to save the Manchester leg. Yes, UKplc prefers Manchester over Leeds (and Birmingham, for that matter) but when it comes to state boondoggles, including largely symbolic "let's move it out London" things like the Channel 4 pseudo-relocation, there's only the same three places ever seriously considered.

If Liverpool gets a better deal than Leeds due to the downscoping of HS2, then it's a happy accident. It's the same for any town that isn't London or one of the three "second cities". It's just down to luck. It doesn't change Liverpool & Leeds' standing with the UK government. Leeds is considered roughly similar to Manchester, Liverpool is as superfluous as Burnley, Goole or Telford. It's standard centralised misrule by a country that doesn't really know what to do with anywhere outside of the South East. And it's why we need quite radical political decentralisation.

Well this really just seems to boiled down to your interpretation of the importance of Liverpool compared to Leeds, rather than what Liverpool & Leeds are actually getting. I’d say there aren’t three second tier cities, but just two instead, so there’s not much point in going around in circles on this.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I would like to ask those who advocate for a through underground station what benefits they see it delivering?

I do not think such a station would be very wise and the current plan is a better approach. Can anyone change my mind?

The current plans for Manchester Piccadilly HS2 Station is for a 6 platform station, with platforms capable of taking 400m trains. The planned routes are:

• 3 x 400m London
• 2 x 200m Birmingham-Leeds
• 2 x 200m Liverpool-Leeds-onwards

That gives 15 tph leaving Piccadilly each hour.

Because it should be. We shouldn't be building termini stations in the 21st century, and it would also allow the potential of through Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland services in the future.

 

[Purple Orange]

Because it should be. We shouldn't be building termini stations in the 21st century, and it would also allow the potential of through Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland services in the future.

That’s not really an answer to the question though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because it should be. We shouldn't be building termini stations in the 21st century, and it would also allow the potential of through Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland services in the future.

That’s not really an answer to the question though.

it‘s not remotely an answer to your question!

 

[Halifaxlad]

Somebody else has got another idea for Manchester which seems to be about putting NPR underground instead of HS2 and having another 3 stations, all of which appear to be underground!



The fourth station is to the West they have named it 'Salford Keys' more about this new campaign called 'Cross North Progranme' can be found on Twitter or ****ter as you may prefer. https://twitter.com/CrossNorthPr?t=EPkX4sQzFTjlV84J6AMtSg&s=09

 

[Purple Orange]

That’s great for Liverpool-Leeds stopping services I’d say. It would be a very good cross rail type service for say Liverpool-Leeds & Chester-Bradford. Liverpool-Newcastle fasts would need different solution.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Further to post 134 they have also published a much more clearer map

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s about £15bn extra.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s about £15bn extra.

If we can't build a handful of kilometres of what amounts to RER with four two-platform stations for less than that we really are in trouble.
That is far less than what was built for Crossrail.

 

[Gareth]

Somebody else has got another idea for Manchester which seems to be about putting NPR underground instead of HS2 and having another 3 stations, all of which appear to be underground!

View attachment 115817

The fourth station is to the West they have named it 'Salford Keys' more about this new campaign called 'Cross North Progranme' can be found on Twitter or ****ter as you may prefer. https://twitter.com/CrossNorthPr?t=EPkX4sQzFTjlV84J6AMtSg&s=09

Thinking about it, would it not be better to put the "GM Metro" services underground instead, with underground stations roughly analogous to the existing Deansgate/Oxford Road/Piccadilly elevated stations. The viaduct could the be left to the longer distance services, with Deansgate and Oxford Road high level stations closed.

 

[Bald Rick]

If we can't build a handful of kilometres of what amounts to RER with four two-platform stations for less than that we really are in trouble.
That is far less than what was built for Crossrail.

it would also be built 20 years after Crossrail, with 20 years worth of inflation.

The stations would be, easily, £2bn each. And the Salford Quays station appears to be underwater, in a place with high real estate values. Call it £3bn.

 

[HSTEd]

and the Salford Quays station appears to be underwater, in a place with high real estate values.

I'm assuming that would probably be like the "underwater" Jubilee Line station at Canary Wharf.
It's not as if the dock has any operational purpose any more so they can just pump out part of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thinking about it, would it not be better to put the "GM Metro" services underground instead, with underground stations roughly analogous to the existing Deansgate/Oxford Road/Piccadilly elevated stations. The viaduct could the be left to the longer distance services, with Deansgate and Oxford Road high level stations closed.

Castlefield is a ready-made metro line with stations in sensible places, and indeed has been that in the past pre-Windsor Link. It'd make more sense to move long distance services away from it than to replicate it underground with several highly expensive stations. It is crying out to be basically turned into a copy of Thameslink or Merseyrail, served by a standardised fleet of long EMUs on regular interval services.

Liverpool needed to build Merseyrail's Link because it didn't have anything there between Exchange and Central, and the Loop because it had nothing connecting directly to Lime St. Manchester already has the foundations of a decent metro style (S-Bahn) service, it just needs the long distance stuff out of the way of it.

 

[Gareth]

But, as the thread demonstrates, it's expensive whatever way; especially if the alternative is putting longer distance services underground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, as the thread demonstrates, it's expensive whatever way; especially if the alternative is putting longer distance services underground.

Stations are a hugely expensive part of the construction of an underground line, so putting through long distance services underground is going to be cheaper as you'd need one station, not three. (Terminating services are fine in the Picc main trainshed).

There's also potential to redevelop Victoria which could take more of those services if it was itself significantly upgraded.

 

[Gareth]

And long distance stations are going to be bigger.

Besides, countries which actually take this sort of thing seriously, more often then not, opt to put the local services underground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And long distance stations are going to be bigger.

Besides, countries which actually take this sort of thing seriously, more often then not, opt to put the local services underground.

I'm not sure they always do in that way. Hamburg for instance still has the Altonaer Verbindungsbahn (very similar to Castlefield but 4-tracked, mercifully) above ground, connecting Altona, Dammtor and Hbf. It also has an underground S-Bahn but that's new-build more like the Merseyrail* Link. If Manchester was in Germany Metrolink would without any doubt be a light rail U-Bahn more like the Newcastle Metro, but that's different.

* Hamburg has many, many parallels with Liverpool, being similarly a grand old port city tucked into the bottom left corner of a bit of land with a river "underneath".

 

[Wolfie]

The point about the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds metropolitan area is that it does NOT need High Speed Rail.

Liverpool-Leeds is only 70 miles. it needs a high frequency high-capacity metro-style service. More like Elizabeth Line or Thameslink than HS2.

And for comparison: Reading-Shenfield is 60 miles; Bedford to Brighton is 120 miles.

I love your comparison. Class 700s incoming to operate it then... If they are good enough for the South East lol.....

 

[Gareth]

I'm not sure they always do in that way. Hamburg for instance still has the Altonaer Verbindungsbahn (very similar to Castlefield but 4-tracked, mercifully) above ground, connecting Altona, Dammtor and Hbf. It also has an underground S-Bahn but that's new-build more like the Merseyrail* Link. If Manchester was in Germany Metrolink would without any doubt be a light rail U-Bahn more like the Newcastle Metro, but that's different.

* Hamburg has many, many parallels with Liverpool, being similarly a grand old port city tucked into the bottom left corner of a bit of land with a river "underneath".

Not "always", I don't doubt, and each case will have its own unique circumstances to consider.

Yes, putting the local services underground with three new stations is expensive but it also has a few things going for it. A big one would be linking in the local services from the east which currently run into the main shed, which would improve cross-city connectivity and relieve the main terminal. You could consolidate most, if not all, long distance services on Piccadilly, so no annoying "which station do I head for" or getting off at Victoria and then having to get to Piccadilly, because you're going somewhere like Marple or Stockport. I'm not saying 100% that's the solution but it'd be nice if we seriously gave some thought to issues like the Castlefield corridor and not merely the "do minimum" sticking plaster approach.

Your Hamburg/Liverpool comparison is interesting. A quite significant difference between the two is that Hamburg is a city state that effectively runs itself - a world away from Liverpool's predicament, as we discussed on another thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm assuming that would probably be like the "underwater" Jubilee Line station at Canary Wharf.
It's not as if the dock has any operational purpose any more so they can just pump out part of it.

something like that. rather expensive as a stand alone project of course.

 

[HSTEd]

something like that. rather expensive as a stand alone project of course.

It does have the advantage that the dock floor is already owned by a single owner.
Anyone know if the dock floor was purchased by Salford City Council with the rest of the development area? Or is it still owned by the Manchester Ship Canal owners [Peel Ports?]?