Manchester Piccadilly P15/16 alignment; alternative development considered

[Boysteve]

I have just seen this article on BBC news. New apartments/homes, a large hotel, and a public park could be built on the old Mayfield Station site and surrounding area. The plan in the article impinges on the require space for P15/16.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-42977051

Of course, there is some speculation that P15/16 might not happen owing to cost/benefit and the need to trim existing schemes for budget reasons. However surely some future proofing arrangement should exist, comments?

 

[coxxy]

Do they not already have planning permission for p15/16 and just waiting for it to be signed off for the DFT or something.. surely if they already have planning permission for p15/p16, granting planning permission for something that will effect it would be wrong on the council's side..

 

[Boysteve]

surely if they already have planning permission for p15/p16, granting planning permission for something that will effect it would be wrong on the council's side.

I hope you are correct, it could be a dodgy map on the news article.

 

[snowball]

Do they not already have planning permission for p15/16 and just waiting for it to be signed off for the DFT or something.. surely if they already have planning permission for p15/p16, granting planning permission for something that will effect it would be wrong on the council's side..

Here is the notice of Network Rail's application to the DfT for an order under the Transport and Works Act.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2248816

Notice the sentence that says "The application contains a statement that a direction for deemed planning permission is being applied for."

 

[WatcherZero]

They have factored it in:

 

[Furrball]

From Street view they seem to be making a good start on adding to the greenery in the area! Some of the growth on the viaduct looks pretty substantial

 

[swt_passenger]

They have factored it in:

Well found.
Perhaps the OP could amend his alarmist thread title now...

 

[telstarbox]

Network Rail would be a consultee anyway as it's so close to the railway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They have factored it in:

Good to see that WatcherZero is to be relied upon here to refute such "alarmist" matters at an opportune time.

 

[WatcherZero]

The same line is on the version of the map appearing on the BBC article as well, just faint and you have to know what its location signifies.

 

[158756]

Are platforms 15 and 16 still planned anyway?

Perhaps they should build on the alignment to teach NR and the DfT a lesson about their incompetent project management.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps they should build on the alignment to teach NR and the DfT a lesson about their incompetent project management.

I really would like to see the result of the proposed outcome of such a draconian action in any NR legal challenge in a Court of Law when any company taking such an action that you so describe after using their defence of the exact "lesson teaching" proposed by you. Perhaps one may envisage any such building works thus erected being ordered to be demolished.

 

[Boysteve]

Perhaps the OP could amend his alarmist thread title now...

It's the 'Alarmist' here, thanks.
When I saw the map on the BBC article my first though was 'what does this mean for P15/16?' and I wanted to seek the views of others. I will never apologies for that.
Yes, I can now see the dotted line on the BBC article map but without a legend understanding it is impossible. Thanks WatcherZero for providing the facts that I was actually trying to seek. I do not think this is the wrong place to have done that.

 

[InOban]

Given that they say that the planned location of the commercial buildings towards Picadilly, and the residential ones further away, is because they want to be close to the transport facilities, it would be reasonable for the developer to make a contribution towards P15/16.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given that they say that the planned location of the commercial buildings towards Picadilly, and the residential ones further away, is because they want to be close to the transport facilities, it would be reasonable for the developer to make a contribution towards P15/16.

We are talking of a large Network Rail managed station with a DfT category "A" rating here, not some small local station with a prospective retail park development nearby.

 

[WatcherZero]

And something the Government had supposedly fully funded Network Rail to proceed with, they've just been 're-prioritised' to plug the overspend on projects the opposite side of the country.

 

[PR1Berske]

The Ordsall Curve needs P15/16 opening to realise its potential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Ordsall Curve needs P15/16 opening to realise its potential.

As I have before, I'd personally say the Ordsall Chord is negative in its effect without P15/16 as there are already too many trains along there.

If we were only ever going to get one of the two, we built the wrong one. But really both would be better.

 

[Altfish]

As I have before, I'd personally say the Ordsall Chord is negative in its effect without P15/16 as there are already too many trains along there.

If we were only ever going to get one of the two, we built the wrong one. But really both would be better.

Why do you think that?
One of the advantages of the Ordsall Chord was to reduce the crossing movements across the throat to Piccadilly. As an example this can be achieved by the TPE trains from Yorkshire to the Airport going via Victoria, Ordsall Chord, Oxford Road and Piccadilly (Platforms 13/14) rather than come through Guide Bridge and have to reverse at Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think that?

Because the Castlefield line is already so full of trains that adding more of them in without additional capacity on that line is going to cause problems. The number of trains there needs to be reduced, not increased, on the assumption you can't go for the Thameslink approach of highly accessible ATO EMUs.

One of the advantages of the Ordsall Chord was to reduce the crossing movements across the throat to Piccadilly. As an example this can be achieved by the TPE trains from Yorkshire to the Airport going via Victoria, Ordsall Chord, Oxford Road and Piccadilly (Platforms 13/14) rather than come through Guide Bridge and have to reverse at Piccadilly.

I've said before, and I'll say again, that until 15/16 are provided the sensible thing to do with those is to terminate them at Picc, have a separate EMU running from platform 11 or 12 to the Airport, and free up a scarce DMU an hour as well. Not enough people use direct Airport services for them to be any kind of priority, and while it is a change of trains it is a change on the level and one that involves less walking than they'll have to do down those big glass tubes on arriving at the Airport.

 

[Bantamzen]

I've said before, and I'll say again, that until 15/16 are provided the sensible thing to do with those is to terminate them at Picc, have a separate EMU running from platform 11 or 12 to the Airport, and free up a scarce DMU an hour as well. Not enough people use direct Airport services for them to be any kind of priority, and while it is a change of trains it is a change on the level and one that involves less walking than they'll have to do down those big glass tubes on arriving at the Airport.

Passenger figures through the station have risen almost 25% in the last 5 reported years. That in itself is enough to make you wonder if your conclusion that not enough people use direct services is correct, even before the Calder Valley ones start up. Manchester Airport are looking to expand their operations with more long haul flights, indeed in the last year both passenger numbers & movements were up over 9%. The road capacity however, especially from the other side of the Pennines, remains pretty much the same so it really is no surprise to find use of MIA bound trains more and more popular. Yes they could in theory be terminated at Piccadilly with a shuttle running, but you still have to find somewhere to stick any terminating Piccadilly services coming in from the Oxford Road direction, so if there is a growing market for services to the airport from places like Liverpool and Leeds then it makes perfect sense to make us of a station with 4 available bays a few miles down the road. Two birds, one stone.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I too am wondering how they are fitting an extra 3tph in each direction along the line.....

Sure they have removed the Scarborough - Liverpool which you could say punctuality wise was one of the worst. They have also removed Southport to the Airport but only off peak. So off peak we have only 1 extra train as far as I can tell. But still the punctuality down that corridor is horrendous so I am surprised the timetable works.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Passenger figures through the station have risen almost 25% in the last 5 reported years. That in itself is enough to make you wonder if your conclusion that not enough people use direct services is correct, even before the Calder Valley ones start up. Manchester Airport are looking to expand their operations with more long haul flights, indeed in the last year both passenger numbers & movements were up over 9%. The road capacity however, especially from the other side of the Pennines, remains pretty much the same so it really is no surprise to find use of MIA bound trains more and more popular. Yes they could in theory be terminated at Piccadilly with a shuttle running, but you still have to find somewhere to stick any terminating Piccadilly services coming in from the Oxford Road direction, so if there is a growing market for services to the airport from places like Liverpool and Leeds then it makes perfect sense to make us of a station with 4 available bays a few miles down the road. Two birds, one stone.

I'm not saying cut everything, just the TPEs that reverse at Picc until P15/16 can be built. Really they were essential to the utility of the Ordsall Chord.

As another possibility, could an additional *track* be build more cheaply than the full platform developments, allowing separate access to and use of 13a/b and 14a/b? Most trains down there don't use all of it, so doing that would provide most of the benefits and indeed have some of its own e.g. easier interchange.

 

[Altfish]

Because the Castlefield line is already so full of trains that adding more of them in without additional capacity on that line is going to cause problems. The number of trains there needs to be reduced, not increased, on the assumption you can't go for the Thameslink approach of highly accessible ATO EMUs.

OK, I'm not arguing that we desperately need 15 and 16.
Currently dwell time is a problem; the long distance stuff (Edinburgh/Glasgow in particular) takes ages to load / unload.

I've said before, and I'll say again, that until 15/16 are provided the sensible thing to do with those is to terminate them at Picc, have a separate EMU running from platform 11 or 12 to the Airport, and free up a scarce DMU an hour as well. Not enough people use direct Airport services for them to be any kind of priority, and while it is a change of trains it is a change on the level and one that involves less walking than they'll have to do down those big glass tubes on arriving at the Airport

If you are a 65 year old couple travelling from Leeds to Manchester Airport the last thing you need is to have to change trains at Piccadilly with two suitcases and other paraphernalia. That is one of the attractions of using the train. Insert another change and you may persuade people to drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently dwell time is a problem; the long distance stuff (Edinburgh/Glasgow in particular) takes ages to load / unload.

Part of that is caused by overcrowding, it'd be a lot quicker if they weren't so heavily loaded. It'll be interesting to see if the new EMUs work better or if the end doors slow it down further.

If you are a 65 year old couple travelling from Leeds to Manchester Airport the last thing you need is to have to change trains at Piccadilly with two suitcases and other paraphernalia. That is one of the attractions of using the train. Insert another change and you may persuade people to drive.

Whether a few people drive on their once a year holiday to southern Spain is really quite unimportant compared with providing a robust, punctual and reliable day to day commuter and InterCity service.

FWIW, my parents almost exactly fit your description (except the Leeds bit) and often choose *coach* these days as it's even easier, they even load your bag for you. And if you're retired you have all the time in the world so the slow journey times don't matter.

By the way, there aren't many 65 year old couples living in city centres, so some kind of connection is by definition necessary, even if it's typically from a taxi or a friend's car. And as I said, you walk further down the glass tunnels to check-in from the airport station than you would at Picc (how wide is the station? 50-100m at most?), so people are unlikely to be travelling with highly impractical luggage, more likely just a trolley bag each.

 

[HowardGWR]

It's not if you are 65 plus that's a problem; it's if you are overweight and unhealthy. I see folk at airports and stations who are so handicapped before they are 40 even.
It's convenience that counts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's convenience that counts.

Public transport has to be run on the basis that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, with reasonable adjustments made for those needing it such as assistance in stations as is provided in Manchester Piccadilly.

I can see no case for those specific through trains to run to Manchester Airport (I'm aware that with trains that naturally come in from the Deansgate end it's a terminus of convenience), and plenty of cases against, not least because the Class 185 set released from not doing so would give another 150-odd people a seat or may even allow them to even *board* the train of their choice. Meanwhile Class 319s grow effectively on trees. I'm not saying those trains don't carry through passengers to the Airport; they do. But they are not heavily loaded compared with other TPE trains, and they clog up either the Picc throat or the Castlefield line, therefore they cannot be a priority.

I'm not saying I love changing trains (though if I have a journey of more than about 3 hours I do prefer to break it up in the middle somewhere, often a longer break for a sit down meal or similar), but I accept that it is necessary for an effective railway network. I never quite understand why this forum seems to have an overriding view that direct trains from everywhere to everywhere are a sensible thing to do.

 

[HSTEd]

If we are going to maintain running so many trains to the Airport from PIcadilly, they should stop at intermediate stations so we can have an ersatz S-Bahn line on the Styal Loop.
It's not as if they would lose much travel time and it would provide an extremely useful public transport opportunity, especially if bus regulation and such is coming to Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are going to maintain running so many trains to the Airport from PIcadilly, they should stop at intermediate stations so we can have an ersatz S-Bahn line on the Styal Loop.
It's not as if they would lose much travel time and it would provide an extremely useful public transport opportunity, especially if bus regulation and such is coming to Manchester.

I must admit I have thought that, though if you did run a dedicated service at say 6tph it does raise the question of where trains that can't avoid going through Castlefield should terminate. You could put one or two into Stockport bay, but the WCML is busy as it is.

 

[Senex]

Part of that is caused by overcrowding, it'd be a lot quicker if they weren't so heavily loaded. It'll be interesting to see if the new EMUs work better or if the end doors slow it down further.

End doors are likely to be slower—but end doors are the right stock for long-distance services. The real answer here, as on the trans-Pennine core route and on some section of XC, is to bite the bullet and keep short-distance passengers off long-distance trains.