Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Jozhua]

Restricting freight to peak hours won't work because they come from Southampton Felixstowe or wherever and the journeys take many hours. Unless you are suggesting parking them up from 0700 to 0900 and 1600 to 1800 then their journey will inevitably pass through at least one major conurbation during peak times.
To be fair to 0820 (ish) slots in Manchester is not often used for freight

Difference is, many other major conurbations are capable of withstanding a freight service in rush hour, which castlefield is not.

 

[Killingworth]

Difference is, many other major conurbations are capable of withstanding a freight service in rush hour, which castlefield is not.

Which may beg the question as to why we're not investing in more capacity for longer through freight trains rather than pushing more stop/start short passenger trains across their paths!

 

[furnessvale]

Which may beg the question as to why we're not investing in more capacity for longer through freight trains rather than pushing more stop/start short passenger trains across their paths!

Buxton-Matlock anyone?

I''l get my coat!

 

[The Planner]

Freight is worth naff all and don't pay premiums back to the DfT, thats why you get very few freight orientated schemes. If moving the freight suddenly opened up lucrative passenger paths then you stand more of a chance.

 

[Andyh82]

Although sending more services through these platforms isn't exactly a good idea, assuming they do, is there actually some spare paths available within the current timetable?

Looking at the timetables, eastbound there is a big 13 minute gap between 00 and 13 which looks like it could fit in at least one more service if not two.

Westbound there is a big 9 minute gap between 38 and 47 and also a fairly sizeable (for these platforms) gap of 8 minutes between 52 and 00

 

[LOL The Irony]

Looking at the timetables, eastbound there is a big 13 minute gap between 00 and 13 which looks like it could fit in at least one more service if not two.

Would that be the paths used by the Trafford Park freight?

 

[Esker-pades]

Would that be the paths used by the Trafford Park freight?

The freight paths eastbound appear to be at XX:31/32.

 

[Mogster]

Article in the MEN today...

Rail bosses have concluded for the second time that Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations MUST be expanded in order to tackle the north’s crippling rail problems - five years after the plan was first promised by George Osborne.

The £600m ‘Northern Hub’ was first announced by Mr Osborne when he was in the Treasury, but since then the government has failed to sign off key elements of the programme.

Under transport secretary Chris Grayling, Network Rail was last year told to review the idea of expanding the stations, a move thought to have been aimed at finding cheaper alternatives.

Officials were given until March to find 'other options'. The M.E.N. now understands they have concluded the original plan is the only solution, meaning the proposal is now back on Mr Grayling’s desk.

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese has warned the project is now at least five years behind, if it ever happens at all, adding: “If this was in London or the south east, it would have happened... If it’s the north of England, it doesn’t happen.”

George Osborne unveiled plans for the ‘Northern Hub’ in 2014, promising major upgrades to infrastructure aimed at ending rail gridlock and adding ‘billions’ to the northern economy.

Part of that was a plan to add two new platforms, 15 and 16, to Manchester Piccadilly, as well as lengthening those at Oxford Road, aimed at increasing crucial capacity within the bottleneck at the heart of the city.

Since then, however, Mr Osborne has left the Treasury and the final sign-off - known as a Transport and Works Act order - has remained stuck with the Department for Transport.

Around a year ago, Chris Grayling then asked Network Rail to review the plan, suggesting ‘digital’ solutions might be sufficient to avoid spending millions on new platforms.

The M.E.N. understands Network Rail has now completed that report, which has concluded no viable alternative exists.

One source said the only other way of dealing with the crippling problems on the network - which affect the wider north as well as Manchester, contributing significantly to last year’s timetable chaos - would be to ‘cut services

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...al-upgrades-were-promised-piccadilly-16409614

 

[Jozhua]

Article in the MEN today...

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...al-upgrades-were-promised-piccadilly-16409614

The article says everything that needs to be said in relation to 15/16! It is really the only solution. You can "Digital Railway" all you want, but you cannot escape the laws of physics. Trains cannot overtake each other, large numbers of passengers take longer periods of time to board and delays to trains ahead will almost certainly affect trains behind...

If anyone happens to create a new petition in relation to Castlefield, please post it! Perhaps within 6 months if it is spread and advertised well, 10000 signatures can be released. I doubt the government will be able to come up with enough of a suitable response for the petitions committee as to why it has not happened.

 

[Killingworth]

The Secretary of State signed off on the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme in February 2018. Work is unlikely to start before 2021 and completion isn't likely before December 2022, with trains not running to new timetables until May 2023. It could be done a lot faster, like if it were 1944 and there were a war on, but it won't!

For similar forward plans the much more complex 15 and 16 probably won't be completed before 2030. There'll be major issues until then, not least during construction together with added confusion and delay as HS2 gets mixed up.

It doesn't have to be this way, but in modern Britain, especially with railway infrastructure, can anyone realistically see any of it happening ahead of these timescales? Sabres need rattling on all of this. Today's press campaign is just the start.

 

[Class 170101]

And a General Election in 2022 (at the latest) for a potential nail in the coffin.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Ordsall Chord TWAO was approved in April 2015. Work started straight away and was completed in late 2017.

 

[Killingworth]

The Ordsall Chord TWAO was approved in April 2015. Work started straight away and was completed in late 2017.

Curious that when it suits it can be done. But hadn't that project been all but ready to go for many months before final approval?

Hope Valley was put back on the shelf and has had to be totally reappraised before work can start. I still can't see why it couldn't be completed by December 2021, but Network Rail aren't rushing anything after all the stick they've had for recent project over runs.

15 and 16 cannot be authorised for many months, even years, as so much has now changed since the project work was completed. Phasing the work itself will take months of planning once the final design is confirmed. Costing it all means construction will have to go in CP7 (or even CP8) as there won't, surely, be funds in CP6 for more than design work, or within Northern Power House Rail.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

15 and 16 cannot be authorised for many months, even years, as so much has now changed since the project work was completed. Phasing the work itself will take months of planning once the final design is confirmed. Costing it all means construction will have to go in CP7 (or even CP8) as there won't, surely, be funds in CP6 for more than design work, or within Northern Power House Rail.

Availability of funds is, in reality, a political matter. Grayling is a right-winger who believes in austerity and minimal public sector spending. If the political landscape should change the funds could appear very quickly. In the short term we will have to wait to see who becomes the new Tory leader and then what they do with their cabinet. Beyond that it might take a general election and with all the current uncertainty in UK politics I wouldn't rule anything in or out!

 

[Glenn1969]

I think it will be done. Either as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade which don't forget hasn't actually been scoped yet by Grayling, or under the auspices of NPR

 

[Bantamzen]

The article says everything that needs to be said in relation to 15/16! It is really the only solution. You can "Digital Railway" all you want, but you cannot escape the laws of physics. Trains cannot overtake each other, large numbers of passengers take longer periods of time to board and delays to trains ahead will almost certainly affect trains behind...

If anyone happens to create a new petition in relation to Castlefield, please post it! Perhaps within 6 months if it is spread and advertised well, 10000 signatures can be released. I doubt the government will be able to come up with enough of a suitable response for the petitions committee as to why it has not happened.

I'd say contact the MEN to set one up, or at least support one based on the wording of their article. That way they can use their various channels to make people aware of it & get it up to the kind of numbers needed for it to be brought before Parliament.

 

[quantinghome]

I think it will be done. Either as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade which don't forget hasn't actually been scoped yet by Grayling, or under the auspices of NPR

Given the timescales it's got to be part of TRU, unless NPR is going to be used as a badge on all rail projects in the North.

 

[DarloRich]

If anyone happens to create a new petition in relation to Castlefield, please post it! Perhaps within 6 months if it is spread and advertised well, 10000 signatures can be released. I doubt the government will be able to come up with enough of a suitable response for the petitions committee as to why it has not happened

I'd say contact the MEN to set one up, or at least support one based on the wording of their article. That way they can use their various channels to make people aware of it & get it up to the kind of numbers needed for it to be brought before Parliament.

Petitions are a waste of time. What is needed is proper political pressure from the elected mayors, serious media and well organised community and business bodies. Oh and cash. Lots of cash.

 

[Killingworth]

I think it will be done. Either as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade which don't forget hasn't actually been scoped yet by Grayling, or under the auspices of NPR

The timescales are the worrying part. There is a lot that needs to be replanned and recosted, no matter what the politics may be. Time has marched on. HS2 may add complication.

Phasing the construction alongside the activity of busy city centre road, tram and rail traffic will require delicate timing to keep all moving. Most of the construction will be alongside and over tracks and carriageways but access still needs to be arranged for the work sites.

Heads down and let's plough on for completion by 2029? Can our political masters do that? Can do, but won't?

 

[Greybeard33]

15 and 16 cannot be authorised for many months, even years, as so much has now changed since the project work was completed. Phasing the work itself will take months of planning once the final design is confirmed. Costing it all means construction will have to go in CP7 (or even CP8) as there won't, surely, be funds in CP6 for more than design work, or within Northern Power House Rail

This seems a very pessimistic view. The Piccadilly/Oxford Road package was supposedly "shovel ready" when the TWAO landed on the SoS's desk three years ago. What exactly has changed to necessitate redesign?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They at least need to get the land purchased. Presently the land to the south is wasteland, old industrial units and a fill in car park. Manchester being Manchester someone somewhere is going to be planning a block of flats or hotel of some kind, and if they get there first it will be difficult or impossible.

I suppose if that did happen there would be an option of decking over the triangle between the main station and the end of 13/14 and installing some west-facing bay platforms (maybe 2 or 3), which while not ideal might help, as you could remove some services from 13/14 and terminate them at Picc instead of them continuing to the Airport. But this would not be the ideal option as they would have to be quite short and would not give maximum flexibility.

 

[Greybeard33]

They at least need to get the land purchased. Presently the land to the south is wasteland, old industrial units and a fill in car park. Manchester being Manchester someone somewhere is going to be planning a block of flats or hotel of some kind, and if they get there first it will be difficult or impossible.

My understanding is that, on the contrary, other property development in the area has been on hold awaiting the TWAO decision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My understanding is that, on the contrary, other property development in the area has been on hold awaiting the TWAO decision.

Ah, good. That removes a concern at least.

 

[Killingworth]

My understanding is that, on the contrary, other property development in the area has been on hold awaiting the TWAO decision.

My understanding is that land was purchased for the Dore chord/loop before the Hope Valley TWAO was confirmed, but that was only a few thousands, not millions for prime city centre sites. It's possible options to purchase may have been taken on critical land for 15/16? I can say that Hope Valley will not start before late 2020/early 2021 after the TWAO was granted early 2018. That was due to everything being recosted after the 3 year delay caused by consultations and the public inquiry. With a much more complex scheme in the city centre I can't see things happening any quicker. There's much scope for a variety of objections and obstacles being found before work can start.

Has anyone seen specific provision for funding in CP6? That runs until 2024 and I'd expect there to be at best only enough in that budget to bring plans up to date for construction in CP7, 2024-2029, if not running over into CP8, 2029-2034.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but having monitored Hope Valley very closely for more than 5 years I've learned not to be over optimistic. However, political windows of opportunity can suddenly open and it's possible with pressure this may come back up the list. It ****** should!

PS Here's what was being said about Hope Valley in 2015. Completion December 2018. 4 years later it's December 2022.

 

[tbtc]

The article says everything that needs to be said in relation to 15/16! It is really the only solution. You can "Digital Railway" all you want, but you cannot escape the laws of physics

This is just a wild idea, but maybe, instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new infrastructure in central Manchester, we could design a timetable based upon the capacity of the infrastructure that we have and the everyday passenger demand that there is (instead of prioritising the once-a-year nice-to-have links to the Airport from every village in northern England)?

Instead of looking at the infrastructure capacity we have, our plan instead seems to be to design a timetable for the infrastructure we'd *like* to have, and then complain to the Government when the entirely predictable problems occur (e.g. squeezing nine trains per hour down the Airport branch despite an average load of thirtysomething passengers, having lots of conflicting movements between the "Stockport" and "Airport" lines in southern Manchester, running a complicated mixture of different stock types down the Airport branch - e.g. 156/175/185/319/323/350s so that the timetable has very little resilience since a delayed service arriving at the Airport can only really go back to one or two destinations in the opposite direction).

We are in a strange position where there seems very little middle ground between the two solutions:

1. Spend hundreds of millions of pounds on additional infrastructure (not just 15/16 but you also need more platform capacity at the Airport if you want to provide suitable facilities for all of the terminating services, given that the 130m long 802s laying over for forty minutes every half hour - or the six coach 185s or the five coach 397s - aren't going to be able to share platforms with anything else), which will probably mean sending even more services down the Airport branch, because we never learn our lessons?
2. Stop obsessing with a lightly used (thirtysomething passengers per train) branch and instead tailor the services to match the infrastructure and everyday demand that we do have, so that we have fewer conflicting movements around Manchester and move to a simpler network of connecting services?

Signing petitions is a waste of time (if six million signing the Article 50 one changed nothing then don't expect a Platform 15/16 one to change much).

 

[Bantamzen]

This is just a wild idea, but maybe, instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new infrastructure in central Manchester, we could design a timetable based upon the capacity of the infrastructure that we have and the everyday passenger demand that there is (instead of prioritising the once-a-year nice-to-have links to the Airport from every village in northern England)?

Instead of looking at the infrastructure capacity we have, our plan instead seems to be to design a timetable for the infrastructure we'd *like* to have, and then complain to the Government when the entirely predictable problems occur (e.g. squeezing nine trains per hour down the Airport branch despite an average load of thirtysomething passengers, having lots of conflicting movements between the "Stockport" and "Airport" lines in southern Manchester, running a complicated mixture of different stock types down the Airport branch - e.g. 156/175/185/319/323/350s so that the timetable has very little resilience since a delayed service arriving at the Airport can only really go back to one or two destinations in the opposite direction).

We are in a strange position where there seems very little middle ground between the two solutions:

1. Spend hundreds of millions of pounds on additional infrastructure (not just 15/16 but you also need more platform capacity at the Airport if you want to provide suitable facilities for all of the terminating services, given that the 130m long 802s laying over for forty minutes every half hour - or the six coach 185s or the five coach 397s - aren't going to be able to share platforms with anything else), which will probably mean sending even more services down the Airport branch, because we never learn our lessons?
2. Stop obsessing with a lightly used (thirtysomething passengers per train) branch and instead tailor the services to match the infrastructure and everyday demand that we do have, so that we have fewer conflicting movements around Manchester and move to a simpler network of connecting services?

Signing petitions is a waste of time (if six million signing the Article 50 one changed nothing then don't expect a Platform 15/16 one to change much).

Or how about for once holding the DfT & Minister to account for not delivering on promises made, instead of trying to scale down rail transport in the North and drive customers back onto the roads? Especially as those "thirty somethings" are likely to, and indeed are growing year on year? The more people argue to scale back operations, the more you play into the Minister's hands. I'm sure the future Chancellor would be delighted to end any commitment to improving the infrastructure in Manchester to help bolster the post-Brexit coffers, or more likely tax cuts for the highest paid!

That message would go down a treat in Whitehall, not so much elsewhere...

Edit: And additionally, given the problems seen on platforms P13/14 now and before, it is blindly clear that these platforms are not fit for purpose with or without airport trains. Thus the additional platforms in P15/16 are needed regardless. The same can be said for Oxford Road too!

 

[Tomnick]

Instead of looking at the infrastructure capacity we have, our plan instead seems to be to design a timetable for the infrastructure we'd *like* to have, and then complain to the Government when the entirely predictable problems occur (e.g. squeezing nine trains per hour down the Airport branch despite an average load of thirtysomething passengers, having lots of conflicting movements between the "Stockport" and "Airport" lines in southern Manchester, running a complicated mixture of different stock types down the Airport branch - e.g. 156/175/185/319/323/350s so that the timetable has very little resilience since a delayed service arriving at the Airport can only really go back to one or two destinations in the opposite direction

Sending trains to the airport, especially in the absence of any meaningful capacity in Manchester to terminate trains from the west, actually reduces conflicts around Slade Lane etc., though? I know it causes other problems, but it seems far preferable to trying to send most/all trains through 13/14 somewhere else instead.

 

[Esker-pades]

This is just a wild idea, but maybe, instead of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on new infrastructure in central Manchester, we could design a timetable based upon the capacity of the infrastructure that we have and the everyday passenger demand that there is (instead of prioritising the once-a-year nice-to-have links to the Airport from every village in northern England)?

Instead of looking at the infrastructure capacity we have, our plan instead seems to be to design a timetable for the infrastructure we'd *like* to have, and then complain to the Government when the entirely predictable problems occur (e.g. squeezing nine trains per hour down the Airport branch despite an average load of thirtysomething passengers, having lots of conflicting movements between the "Stockport" and "Airport" lines in southern Manchester, running a complicated mixture of different stock types down the Airport branch - e.g. 156/175/185/319/323/350s so that the timetable has very little resilience since a delayed service arriving at the Airport can only really go back to one or two destinations in the opposite direction).

We are in a strange position where there seems very little middle ground between the two solutions:

1. Spend hundreds of millions of pounds on additional infrastructure (not just 15/16 but you also need more platform capacity at the Airport if you want to provide suitable facilities for all of the terminating services, given that the 130m long 802s laying over for forty minutes every half hour - or the six coach 185s or the five coach 397s - aren't going to be able to share platforms with anything else), which will probably mean sending even more services down the Airport branch, because we never learn our lessons?
2. Stop obsessing with a lightly used (thirtysomething passengers per train) branch and instead tailor the services to match the infrastructure and everyday demand that we do have, so that we have fewer conflicting movements around Manchester and move to a simpler network of connecting services?

Signing petitions is a waste of time (if six million signing the Article 50 one changed nothing then don't expect a Platform 15/16 one to change much).

Two questions:
If trains coming through the Castlefield Corridor don't terminate at Manchester Airport, where do they terminate?
If trains coming into Manchester don't use the Castlefield Corridor, where do they go?

• Manchester Oxford Road only has a finite amount of services that can use the bay (4ph max), and that's going to go soon.
• Manchester Piccadilly doesn't have the terminating platform capacity. Trains already get stacked up under the shed, which is a sign of the stress that it is under as a very congested point on the network.
• The throat just south of Piccadilly doesn't have the capacity to send trains shunting across all 6 tracks to continue along the TransPennine routes, or indeed any others via Reddish North or to Hadfield etc.
  
• Victoria hardly has the platform capacity to deal with more trains.
• Terminating trains at platform 13 is going to make the situation worse

That leaves continuing down to Manchester Airport, or continuing down to Stockport. The latter now happens, and there are only so many Buxton/Macclesfield/Crewe services that one can use before one has no more Northern services which run via Stockport.

 

[Bantamzen]

Two questions:
If trains coming through the Castlefield Corridor don't terminate at Manchester Airport, where do they terminate?
If trains coming into Manchester don't use the Castlefield Corridor, where do they go?

• Manchester Oxford Road only has a finite amount of services that can use the bay (4ph max), and that's going to go soon.
• Manchester Piccadilly doesn't have the terminating platform capacity. Trains already get stacked up under the shed, which is a sign of the stress that it is under as a very congested point on the network.
• The throat just south of Piccadilly doesn't have the capacity to send trains shunting across all 6 tracks to continue along the TransPennine routes, or indeed any others via Reddish North or to Hadfield etc.
  
• Victoria hardly has the platform capacity to deal with more trains.
• Terminating trains at platform 13 is going to make the situation worse

That leaves continuing down to Manchester Airport, or continuing down to Stockport. The latter now happens, and there are only so many Buxton/Macclesfield/Crewe services that one can use before one has no more Northern services which run via Stockport.

The rather stock answer you'll get is to run less through the corridor, in a S-Bahn, North West only configuration because that would be neater. It wouldn't suit the needs of many passengers, wouldn't solve the problem of increased congestion on platforms as more interchanges take place, wouldn't solve the problem of getting anything up to an extra 20 million paying punters a year to the airport, depending on how many Manc-Bahns run might not solve the number of conflicts, and ultimately would drive passengers away from the rail network creating even more congestion on the roads.

You see the moment something becomes difficult, it needs to be scaled back. Apparently....

 

[Esker-pades]

The rather stock answer you'll get is to run less through the corridor, in a S-Bahn, North West only configuration because that would be neater. It wouldn't suit the needs of many passengers, wouldn't solve the problem of increased congestion on platforms as more interchanges take place, wouldn't solve the problem of getting anything up to an extra 20 million paying punters a year to the airport, depending on how many Manc-Bahns run might not solve the number of conflicts, and ultimately would drive passengers away from the rail network creating even more congestion on the roads.

You see the moment something becomes difficult, it needs to be scaled back. Apparently....

But if they don't run through the corridor, where do they go?