Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Bantamzen]

good morning Mr Barclays. May I borrow £27bn to build something. Yes. When will I get my money back. Well, the thing is...........................

Even with government funding you need to show that spending tax payers money here ( that is UK tax payers money remember, not Manchester tax payers) offers a better return than building a motorway in Glasgow or a new hospital in Plymouth and Cardiff or 12 new schools in Newcastle or building a new submarine.

Oh absolutely, its totally correct to show value & when borrowing can be repaid. However the decision makers are interested only in the easily quantifiable, headline busting projects.

Case in point P15/16 at Piccadilly, the headline value is a couple of extra platforms at a Northern city railway station that already has 14. The underlying value is vastly improved performance through the corridor, resulting in less delays / cancelations, people getting to work on time & improving productivity, and potentially adding additional potential revenue generating capacity. The headline value is not very sexy, and so the rubber-stampers procrastinate over it's value because it doesn't give an easily quantifiable return for those all important headlines. And so it stays in the inbox of the Minister rather than getting the approval it should have. This is the underlying problem I'm inferring to. This is how decisions are driven these days in the public sector (at least even more so than previously), if it doesn't add value during the potential term of the government, or sometimes even for the period the decision maker expects to be in place, then it goes into 'Pending'.

A hospital, or submarine is far more politically sexy and headline grabbing than a couple of poxy platforms stuck on the southern side of Piccadilly, even if a Minister in charge has no real plans to actually build the hospital or submarine. Even HS2 sounds sexier to some at least, giving us shiny new trains as fast as (well almost) as those built by the blinking Germans & French...

 

[DarloRich]

if it doesn't add value during the potential term of the government, or sometimes even for the period the decision maker expects to be in place, then it goes into 'Pending'.

i agree with that part! The section before less so.

the headline value is a couple of extra platforms at a Northern city railway station that already has 14

but it isnt just 2 platforms is it? it is a massive civil engineering project, next to very busy live railway line in a massively busy city on a tight site, demolition, remediation, all kinds of public realm works, utility works, compulsory purchase, legal battles, PR issues, long term service disruption etc etc. It is a HUGE project that might not be worth it once HS 2 comes.

It is also a massive political call: Will this project win me votes? Will the voters associated the disruption with me and blame me? How much bad PR will this bring me? Could it be like HS2? Can I be bothered with the fight? Is there an easier battle? Heck, i promised the new foreign Secretary a new hospital in his constituency and the Chancellor that motorway interchange. shoot. hell, the new run way at Heathrow needs building. God. This is tough. Lets not bother.

The interesting point for me is Johnson winning seats in the north. That could be the key to unlocking this kind of thing, although personally i doubt Johnson sees any "debt" to be repaid and even if he does there are quicker ways of winning the PR battle.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Case in point P15/16 at Piccadilly, the headline value is a couple of extra platforms at a Northern city railway station that already has 14.

Nethen lad, we only have 14 platforms in this part of the Red Rose blessed area, whereas the Tykes have 17 platforms in their White Rose Kingdom of Elmet. Is this still a hark-back to the time of the Battle of the Roses when it was "them up North" who fought all the big battles, here, there and everywhere...

I had to smile when you made reference to a "Northern city" above. It reminded me of the part of Pride and Prejudice when it was said that Mr Whickham had joined "a Northern regiment"....

 

[Bantamzen]

but it isnt just 2 platforms is it? it is a massive civil engineering project, next to very busy live railway line in a massively busy city on a tight site, demolition, remediation, all kinds of public realm works, utility works, compulsory purchase, legal battles, PR issues, long term service disruption etc etc. It is a HUGE project that might not be worth it once HS 2 comes.

It is also a massive political call: Will this project win me votes? Will the voters associated the disruption with me and blame me? How much bad PR will this bring me? Could it be like HS2? Can I be bothered with the fight? Is there an easier battle? Heck, i promised the new foreign Secretary a new hospital in his constituency and the Chancellor that motorway interchange. shoot. hell, the new run way at Heathrow needs building. God. This is tough. Lets not bother.

The interesting point for me is Johnson winning seats in the north. That could be the key to unlocking this kind of thing, although personally i doubt Johnson sees any "debt" to be repaid and even if he does there are quicker ways of winning the PR battle.

But that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Decisions aren't made on the basis of the overall benefit that they are often proposed to give, but on the headline busting, voting gaining 'wins'. And its not just Ministers that have this problem, it has become more rife throughout the public sector, tainting decision making & thereby aspirations in search of the 'easy win'. I've watched lots of IT projects in my area get kicked into the long grass despite being needed by those of use trying to improve things & cut costs, simply because they were "too complex", "too risky" or because we "need a quick win". Occasionally they have been kicked down the street because they were, wait for it, "too whizzy". And yes, those are phrases that have been used even when really strong cases, with major long term savings have been presented.

The Castlefield Corridor improvements, including P15/16 were meant to be a programme of improvements to improve capacity and performance through Manchester, each complimenting one another. Instead the Minister & DfT went for the path of least resistance, build Ordsall Chord because there was really only a museum and a notable dissenter from the architect community to upset. In terms of the overall set of improvements proposed, this was the quick win. Had the Minister approved all improvements, there would have been far more in the way of cost & disruption compared to just one part, so he/DfT just thought let's just go for that one bit and hope it solves all the problems. It didn't, as we know. In truth it made things worse, and now we are left still needing all the improvements, albeit inflation adjusted, & we have added instability on that part of the network.

There's little doubting the engineering & cost challenges that were associated with the full set of proposals, but what price compared to a slowly melting network now? Maybe Johnson will see Manchester as an ideal place to repay the North's "loyalty", and push at least P15/16 into the planning stages. But with the 'B' period fast approaching, I suspect that the problems will be passed back to Whitehall for v2.0 of the Castlefield Fudge Solution.

Nethen lad, we only have 14 platforms in this part of the Red Rose blessed area, whereas the Tykes have 17 platforms in their White Rose Kingdom of Elmet. Is this still a hark-back to the time of the Battle of the Roses when it was "them up North" who fought all the big battles, here, there and everywhere...

I had to smile when you made reference to a "Northern city" above. It reminded me of the part of Pride and Prejudice when it was said that Mr Whickham had joined "a Northern regiment"....

Well technically Manchester has 14 + 6 + 5 + 2 = 27 platforms taking into account Piccadilly + Victoria + Oxford Road + Deansgate, and not withstanding Metrolink. So you'll forgive us Yorkshire folk for not offering too much pity to the North West's plight on the platform count.....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well technically Manchester has 14 + 6 + 5 + 2 = 27 platforms taking into account Piccadilly + Victoria + Oxford Road + Deansgate, and not withstanding Metrolink. So you'll forgive us Yorkshire folk for not offering too much pity to the North West's plight on the platform count.....

No "technically" suppositions, please. Just compare the ACTUAL number of platforms in major city-centre Network Rail managed railway stations such as Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds railway stations without reference to any of the "odds and sods" to which you have cunningly added to the Manchester station.

In the mean time, is there not to be a platform 0 at Leeds, to increase its platform count?

 

[Bantamzen]

No "technically" suppositions, please. Just compare the ACTUAL number of platforms in major city-centre Network Rail managed railway stations such as Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds railway stations without reference to any of the "odds and sods" to which you have cunningly added to the Manchester station.

In the mean time, is there not to be a platform 0 at Leeds, to increase its platform count?

<pedant>

You didn't mention NR managed stations, just that "we only have 14 platforms in this part of the Red Rose blessed area". I pointed out that you have many more, that they may be managed by different companies is neither here nor there. They are still platforms in that part of the "Red Rose blessed area"...
</pendant>

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's also that it's kind of a separate station. There are but two platforms that can be used for any of the present services on Castlefield.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Even with government funding you need to show that spending tax payers money here ( that is UK tax payers money remember, not Manchester tax payers) offers a better return than building a motorway in Glasgow or a new hospital in Plymouth and Cardiff or 12 new schools in Newcastle or building a new submarine.

Will mean fewer delays across the entirety of the mainland UK. The Castlefield Corridor affects more than just trains using the Castlefield Corridor.

 

[cactustwirly]

Will mean fewer delays across the entirety of the mainland UK. The Castlefield Corridor affects more than just trains using the Castlefield Corridor.

Will it though?
It will do jack all for the trains I use....

 

[Howardh]

But that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Decisions aren't made on the basis of the overall benefit that they are often proposed to give, but on the headline busting, voting gaining 'wins'. And its not just Ministers that have this problem, it has become more rife throughout the public sector, tainting decision making & thereby aspirations in search of the 'easy win'. I've watched lots of IT projects in my area get kicked into the long grass despite being needed by those of use trying to improve things & cut costs, simply because they were "too complex", "too risky" or because we "need a quick win". Occasionally they have been kicked down the street because they were, wait for it, "too whizzy". And yes, those are phrases that have been used even when really strong cases, with major long term savings have been presented.

The Castlefield Corridor improvements, including P15/16 were meant to be a programme of improvements to improve capacity and performance through Manchester, each complimenting one another. Instead the Minister & DfT went for the path of least resistance, build Ordsall Chord because there was really only a museum and a notable dissenter from the architect community to upset. In terms of the overall set of improvements proposed, this was the quick win. Had the Minister approved all improvements, there would have been far more in the way of cost & disruption compared to just one part, so he/DfT just thought let's just go for that one bit and hope it solves all the problems. It didn't, as we know. In truth it made things worse, and now we are left still needing all the improvements, albeit inflation adjusted, & we have added instability on that part of the network.

There's little doubting the engineering & cost challenges that were associated with the full set of proposals, but what price compared to a slowly melting network now? Maybe Johnson will see Manchester as an ideal place to repay the North's "loyalty", and push at least P15/16 into the planning stages. But with the 'B' period fast approaching, I suspect that the problems will be passed back to Whitehall for v2.0 of the Castlefield Fudge Solution.



Well technically Manchester has 14 + 6 + 5 + 2 = 27 platforms taking into account Piccadilly + Victoria + Oxford Road + Deansgate, and not withstanding Metrolink. So you'll forgive us Yorkshire folk for not offering too much pity to the North West's plight on the platform count.....

Our platforms in Manchester can also take two trains! (Sometimes, depending on the length of the train, platform, if it's parked in the right place...)

 

[Howardh]

I sometimes wonder if the solution is to make Oxford Road a 5 (6 if 6 could be re-opened) platform terminal station and the same at Piccadilly 13/14 and put an airport-style moving walkway between the two!! BTW this isn't a serious suggestion so don't jump in!!

**But I wonder if someone with a drawing board has ever.....**

 

[LOL The Irony]

Will it though?
It will do jack all for the trains I use....

Cross Country trains to the west country via Birmingham.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I sometimes wonder if the solution is to make Oxford Road a 5 (6 if 6 could be re-opened) platform terminal station and the same at Piccadilly 13/14 and put an airport-style moving walkway between the two!! BTW this isn't a serious suggestion so don't jump in!!

**But I wonder.....**

That has been suggested before. Except the walkway was to replace Deansgate station.

 

[DarloRich]

Will mean fewer delays across the entirety of the mainland UK. The Castlefield Corridor affects more than just trains using the Castlefield Corridor.

no it wont! lets not get carried away

 

[Bantamzen]

I sometimes wonder if the solution is to make Oxford Road a 5 (6 if 6 could be re-opened) platform terminal station and the same at Piccadilly 13/14 and put an airport-style moving walkway between the two!! BTW this isn't a serious suggestion so don't jump in!!

**But I wonder if someone with a drawing board has ever.....**

Travellator you say.... How about extending it all the way to Victoria from Oxford Road, calling at Piccadilly, Piccadilly Gardens, Arndale Centre.....

 

[Howardh]

Travellator you say.... How about extending it all the way to Victoria from Oxford Road, calling at Piccadilly, Piccadilly Gardens, Arndale Centre.....

One from Victoria to the centre would have made more sense than extending the Metrolink that way - for one stop so close to Victoria I wonder what the point was!! But that's all OT....

 

[Howardh]

That has been suggested before. Except the walkway was to replace Deansgate station.

Was it was to close Deansgate to rail but link the Metrolink to Oxford Road? At least late-running stopping trains @ Deansgate wouldn't then be holding up through trains behind I suppose. They DO close Deansgate at certain times of the year.

 

[Bantamzen]

Was it was to close Deansgate to rail but link the Metrolink to Oxford Road? At least late-running stopping trains @ Deansgate wouldn't then be holding up through trains behind I suppose. They DO close Deansgate at certain times of the year.

I think Deansgate might be a candidate for closure, more so if the Oxford Road redesign took place as some kind of raised walkway might be possible from Deansgate to Oxford Road, linking it to Metrolink (which it really should have been all along IMO, but that's for another thread), and providing a new western approach to Oxford Road.

 

[Killingworth]

There's also that it's kind of a separate station. There are but two platforms that can be used for any of the present services on Castlefield.

And more than half of passengers using Piccadilly use Pllatforms 13/14. They'd probably figure well up in Britain's top 50 stations on their own!

 

[Howardh]

I think Deansgate might be a candidate for closure, more so if the Oxford Road redesign took place as some kind of raised walkway might be possible from Deansgate to Oxford Road, linking it to Metrolink (which it really should have been all along IMO, but that's for another thread), and providing a new western approach to Oxford Road.

I wouldn't complain if Deansgate was to shut completely if it would help the corridor; I do see an issue with pax wanting to change onto the trams there who would be greatly inconvenienced - their options would be to x at Picc and go back on themselves or walk back to Deansgate or across to St. Peters SQ; one option could be a small bus at VERY frequent intervals simply going from Oxford Rd sta > Oxford St > St Peters Sq stop > Lwr Mosely St/Gt Bridgewater St > Deansgate stop > Whitworth St W> Oxford Rd sta thus covering two bases and following the one-way systems.

 

[Bantamzen]

I wouldn't complain if Deansgate was to shut completely if it would help the corridor; I do see an issue with pax wanting to change onto the trams there who would be greatly inconvenienced - their options would be to x at Picc and go back on themselves or walk back to Deansgate or across to St. Peters SQ; one option could be a small bus at VERY frequent intervals simply going from Oxford Rd sta > Oxford St > St Peters Sq stop > Lwr Mosely St/Gt Bridgewater St > Deansgate stop > Whitworth St W> Oxford Rd sta thus covering two bases and following the one-way systems.

That would be the one downside, although a rough estimate would be that the walk from a western entrance along an extended P4 to the platform level at Deansgate-Castlefield along an elevated walkway would be around 5 mins, so not insurmountable. I guess a lot would centre around how many of the 0.42M entrances / exits from Deansgate actually interchanged with Metrolink.

 

[Howardh]

That would be the one downside, although a rough estimate would be that the walk from a western entrance along an extended P4 to the platform level at Deansgate-Castlefield along an elevated walkway would be around 5 mins, so not insurmountable. I guess a lot would centre around how many of the 0.42M entrances / exits from Deansgate actually interchanged with Metrolink.

Could, I suppose, simply close Deansgate at peak hours and have it open in the evenings. Although I'm not sure part or full time closures would go down well with the public.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly I would prefer a rebuild of Deansgate into a four platform station.
If nothing else it would spread passengers across three stations instead of two.

But a rebuild would require significant demolitions.

 

[Sceptre]

Will it though?
It will do jack all for the trains I use....

Brighouse lost one of its direct train to Leeds because Northern had to scramble around to provide the promised increase in destinations that Calder Valley trains could access, because the Airport service had to be kiboshed to not conflict with the Bolton trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wouldn't complain if Deansgate was to shut completely if it would help the corridor; I do see an issue with pax wanting to change onto the trams there who would be greatly inconvenienced - their options would be to x at Picc and go back on themselves or walk back to Deansgate or across to St. Peters SQ; one option could be a small bus at VERY frequent intervals simply going from Oxford Rd sta > Oxford St > St Peters Sq stop > Lwr Mosely St/Gt Bridgewater St > Deansgate stop > Whitworth St W> Oxford Rd sta thus covering two bases and following the one-way systems.

Deansgate station does have its bridge link to the 3-platform Deansgate-Castlefield Metrolink tram stop that has services to other areas than Manchester Piccadilly, such as Bury and Rochdale on the north side of the city, Ashton-under-Lyne on the east side of the city, Media CityUK, Eccles (and soon the intu Trafford Centre) to the west side of the city and Manchester Airport on the south side of the city.

Deansgate-Castlefield is a very busy city centre tram stop with numerous trams per hour.

 

[WatcherZero]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf

2. Executive Summary:

2.1 The current railway infrastructure in Central Manchester does not support all the services that have been committed in the Northern franchise, with the result that:

• Some train services that have been contracted in the current franchises are not able to operate; and
• Services that do run have far lower reliability than is required, both in Manchester and across the north of England.

2.2 Network Rail has produced an ‘Update’ on its Cross Manchester Capacity & Reliability Improvement Project, which found that: “There is no single project solution to resolve the capacity and reliability issues …. for the Cross-Manchester programme”. The strategic choices are:
➢ investment in the infrastructure;
➢ some reduction to the train service; or
➢ accept the very poor reliability that is a consequence of using the existing infrastructure so intensively.

2.3 Infrastructure enhancements A package of potential enhancements to the infrastructure have been identified that would allow operation of the committed franchise services and much improved reliability, including:

• 2 Additional platforms at Piccadilly and longer platforms at Oxford Rd (the Northern Hub ‘Package C’ works);
• A new turnback siding east of Victoria;
• Works at Manchester Airport, extending platform provision;
• Potential ‘Other options’ at 9 locations to the north and west of central Manchester; and
• Potential works south of Piccadilly.

and it is recommended that Transport for the North’s should support those options for the improved reliability that they would produce.

2.4 Following receipt and consideration of reports in September 2019 and November 2019, the Rail North Committee has made a set of recommendations to the Board about advice that Transport for the North should issue to the Secretary of State for Transport on those infrastructure enhancements, which are set out in section 5.

2.5 Service changes/reductions As a palliative measure until adequate infrastructure is provided it will be necessary to reduce and/or change services in central Manchester. DfT engaged rail industry expert Richard George to recommend what service changes could be made in the short-term (i.e. by December 2020). Those proposals for short-term service changes/reductions are being considered by the Rail North Committee, which will advise the Rail North Partnership accordingly.

3.10 Action required to resolve the problem
At DfT’s request, Network Rail has now undertaken a review of the original ‘Package C’ scheme. It found:

a) that without the works at Oxford Road and Piccadilly it would be necessary to reduce the service to 14 trains per hour (tph) to allow ‘robust’ operation compared to the 16tph committed through the Northern & TPE franchise agreements – although how reliable such ‘robust’ operation would be has not been fully quantified; and

b) that there is no simpler and cheaper set of works on the Castlefield corridor itself that would robustly provide for 16tph and longer (8-car) trains.

3.11 It has also been identified that there are problems:

a) at Manchester Victoria caused by the increased number of trains passing through and terminating there, and
b) at Manchester Airport where longer and/or more platforms are needed;

and that there are potential works at 9 other locations north and west of Manchester which could potentially improve the reliability of trains using the Castlefield corridor.

3.12 In Spring 2019 DfT approved £2.4million for the next stage development of the works at Manchester Victoria, Manchester Airport and the 9 other locations north and west of Manchester.

Network Rail will recommend a shortlist of schemes for further development funding to the North of England Programme Board in February 2020.

Doesn't say what the 9 location schemes required to support Castlefield are and the original report (and options for which 2tph to cut) were seen and discussed behind closed doors. But from elsewhere in the report the schemes seem to have included Salford Crescent (presumably more platforms, junction remodelling), grade separation of Ordsall Lane, a Manchester Victoria Eastern turnback, lengthening of Manchester Airport platforms (possibly involving alteration to the A555 to make room)

 

[WatcherZero]

Well technically Manchester has 14 + 6 + 5 + 2 = 27 platforms taking into account Piccadilly + Victoria + Oxford Road + Deansgate, and not withstanding Metrolink. So you'll forgive us Yorkshire folk for not offering too much pity to the North West's plight on the platform count.....

In the 1960's the same stations collectively boasted 49 platforms!

 

[AndrewE]

Well technically Manchester has 14 + 6 + 5 + 2 = 27 platforms taking into account Piccadilly + Victoria + Oxford Road + Deansgate, and not withstanding Metrolink. So you'll forgive us Yorkshire folk for not offering too much pity to the North West's plight on the platform count.....

The real point is that 2 at Deansgate feed 4 at Oxford Rd which continue to the 2 through lines at Piccadilly. The very most that you can exploit in parallel is 14 + 6+ 2(extra at Oxford Rd.) i.e. 22.
I suspect the Deansgate calls currently do more harm than good and would be better served by an enclosed travelator back to it for the people who have to get there.
The rest of the corridor is only going to be double track for the foreseeable future so the 2-track station isn't a problem - especially if trains don't stop there!
4 through platforms at Oxford Rd and 4 at Piccadilly should deal with the medium-term problem, maybe we need even more thinning-out and train lengthening in the immediate future, but for the longer term it has to be a big underground job, hopefully integrating HS2 and NPR/HS3.
It will just have to be under all the stuff currently under Manchester - although filling in and tunnelling through the abandoned coal mines will be a challenge.

 

[Sceptre]

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/Item-5-Central-Manchester-Report.pdf





Doesn't say what the 9 location schemes required to support Castlefield are and the original report (and options for which 2tph to cut) were seen and discussed behind closed doors. But from elsewhere in the report the schemes seem to have included Salford Crescent (presumably more platforms, junction remodelling), grade separation of Ordsall Lane, a Manchester Victoria Eastern turnback, lengthening of Manchester Airport platforms (possibly involving alteration to the A555 to make room)

I do wonder how much was spent on a report to find out the bleeding obvious, though…

 

[Killingworth]

I'm sure it's bringing up the blindingly obvious, but if we can't tunnel under, why not build a second pair of tracks all the way along the corridor immediately above the existing tracks?

Thought not, already been rejected. Too many obstructions overhead, supporting difficulties alongside existing structures, listed buildings, and how to join existing tracks. Heath Robinson would have fixed it, or Far Tottering and Oyster Creek Railway's Emmett.

I'll go back to my dreams of a long distance interchange box undergound, linked by travellators to Piccadilly and Victoria, reserving the surface lines for more local traffic and emergencies. I won't live to see it planned, let alone costed, built and operated - certainly not if the Crossrail team are responsible.