Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Howardh]

Southport's service will be one through Vic and one through Castlefield, both via Bolton. It's being achieved without adding an extra service to Castlefield by swapping the Wigan NW terminator with the Southport if I recall.

Thanks, yes that extra train to Piccadilly from Bolton appears to be at 2010 which, unless late, doesn't help me - it's either the Hazel Grove 2022 (although it's virtually always late) then the 2054. Ideally I'd like one around 2240!!

 

[Roose]

I think it'd make more sense just to start/terminate the Barrows/Windermeres at Preston or even Lancaster and keep two Blackpools. That way you not only remove a train from Castlefield but also a DMU from under the wires.

And like a broken record, here we go again!

While it may make sense to people who play with train sets, it wouldn't make sense to international passengers from/to the advanced manufacturing sites in Furness nor to passengers who come from the expanding international tourism market to Lakeland.

The former market, in particular, is only just starting to recover from the extensive service failures during the previous and current franchised, some of which continue intermittently at seekends and the temporary but longstanding withdrawal of many through airport services on the Furness and Lakes Lines.

Regular observation of passengers with large luggage, especially southbound, changing at Oxenholme and Lancaster onto frequently very busy TPE services might temper your view.

Heaven perish the thought that passenger convenience should be a factor in running train services...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heaven perish the thought that passenger convenience should be a factor in running train services...

There is no passenger convenience in an unpunctual and unreliable rail service. Better a punctual and reliable connectional service than a direct service that may or may not run.

Northern's main problem is with the idea that everywhere needs a direct train to everywhere. It's silly and it needs to stop.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no passenger convenience in an unpunctual and unreliable rail service. Better a punctual and reliable connectional service than a direct service that may or may not run.

Is there now really any "punctual and reliable connectional" services that you refer to?

 

[railfan100]

New platforms will not help. The junctions need flyovers costing potentially many hundreds of millions or maybe more than a billion. Diverting many services from Victoria in 1990 does not seem like a great strategy for the longer term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there now really any "punctual and reliable connectional" services that you refer to?

No, but thinning the timetable and adding padding would be likely to improve punctuality and reliability (the pre-1997 timetable had roughly half the service frequency of now on what was actually inferior infrastructure, and was generally very punctual and reliable).

That is the core of my argument. Operating with little or no slack does not work. If there is no money to build the infrastructure needed for proper operation of the timetable, the timetable needs to be thinned (with longer trains where feasible) and it will then operate reliably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New platforms will not help. The junctions need flyovers costing potentially many hundreds of millions or maybe more than a billion. Diverting many services from Victoria in 1990 does not seem like a great strategy for the longer term.

There was nothing wrong with that at the pre-1997 frequencies. It operated punctually and reliably.

The rot started in 1998 when frequencies were increased - at that point Castlefield started creaking, and at that point P15/16 should have been built (BEFORE anything like Ordsall). Further increases have only made things worse.

The other thing that made things worse was the loss of permissive working in 13/14. Had there ever actually been a bump there? What has been gained by doing that?

 

[railfan100]

There was nothing wrong with that at the pre-1997 frequencies. It operated punctually and reliably.

Indeed but in the longer term it would always lead to a road of trouble. In the 90's I concur it caused no new problems but it always in the very long term would in a predictable way cause serious capacity issues there was no growth in that model that could support a growing city it is lack of vision. Victoria with 6 through platforms had growth all though of course that was sold off again for another short term vision. The current situation is self inflicted.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No, but thinning the timetable and adding padding would be likely to improve punctuality and reliability (the pre-1997 timetable had roughly half the service frequency of now on what was actually inferior infrastructure, and was generally very punctual and reliable).

You most probably have heard the blasé media reporting that "even more services" would be in the new timetable just introduced, as if all the problems would then be a thing of the past.

 

[Howardh]

I have often wondered why the eastern line - Victoria to Ardwick, mainly the disuesd loop at Ardwick - hasn't been reinstated as that could take some trains from the NW via Victoria and into Piccadilly (1 - 12) round the east without using the congested corridor. I don't think there's that much (if any?) demolition of existing buildings required and I bet it would be cheaper than extending the corridor with more lines? Could also have the benefit if a new rail station serving the sports complex where City play.
I would imagine that it would extend a (say) Bolton to Piccadilly journey by 10 minutes and misses out Oxford Rd/Deansgate (that's the whole point...) but anyone going to the city centre could x onto trams @ Vic and many trains into 13/14 get held up by several minutes anyway!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have often wondered why the eastern line - Victoria to Ardwick, mainly the disuesd loop at Ardwick - hasn't been reinstated as that could take some trains from the NW via Victoria and into Piccadilly (1 - 12) round the east without using the congested corridor. I don't think there's that much (if any?) demolition of existing buildings required and I bet it would be cheaper than extending the corridor with more lines? Could also have the benefit if a new rail station serving the sports complex where City play.
I would imagine that it would extend a (say) Bolton to Piccadilly journey by 10 minutes and misses out Oxford Rd/Deansgate (that's the whole point...) but anyone going to the city centre could x onto trams @ Vic and many trains into 13/14 get held up by several minutes anyway!!

I'd have personally favoured that over Ordsall. But if you built it as well, you could implement a Manchester "Circle Line"[1] using trains designed for quick boarding/alighting and with a standee layout on that (a follow-on of a shorter version of the Crossrail EMUs would be perfect) and stop running everything else over Ordsall. If those ended up a bit late, no great issue - it wouldn't have knock-on all over the North, you could easily solve the issue with a cancellation and step-up provided they had dedicated crews all day.

[1] Operating it as a panhandle as Manchester Airport via Castlefield/Ordsall to Vic then onto Picc P1 via that curve would avoid it crossing the formation at Picc or clogging through platforms at Vic.

 

[railfan100]

If Victoria was the size it was in 1991 although with a decent refurb there would be NO capacity issues. With services using Victoria as an equal to Piccadilly with true distribution there would be no problem. Would have been much better than the current no long term strategy approach. It will cost hundreds of millions to build flyovers. Such poor planning would never happen in countries like Germany.

 

[coppercapped]

If Victoria was the size it was in 1991 although with a decent refurb there would be NO capacity issues. With services using Victoria as an equal to Piccadilly with true distribution there would be no problem. Would have been much better than the current no long term strategy approach. It will cost hundreds of millions to build flyovers. Such poor planning would never happen in countries like Germany.

To your last point - rubbish!

I've lived in Germany, worked in Germany and return often. Poor planning is also alive and well there!

 

[Howardh]

I'd have personally favoured that over Ordsall. But if you built it as well, you could implement a Manchester "Circle Line"[1] using trains designed for quick boarding/alighting and with a standee layout on that (a follow-on of a shorter version of the Crossrail EMUs would be perfect) and stop running everything else over Ordsall. If those ended up a bit late, no great issue - it wouldn't have knock-on all over the North, you could easily solve the issue with a cancellation and step-up provided they had dedicated crews all day.

[1] Operating it as a panhandle as Manchester Airport via Castlefield/Ordsall to Vic then onto Picc P1 via that curve would avoid it crossing the formation at Picc or clogging through platforms at Vic.

I've often thought of that as a "circle line" and maybe there's a case if trains terminated from the N and W @ Victoria and from the S and E @ Piccadilly, thus leaving the curve for the circle line. But I think it falls down on it still doesn't reduce the congestion (1) Windsor Link and (2) Castlefield corridor and a regular circle line at 4tph adds considerably, where I would re-route trains for Picc "round the back".
But that being said I've little knowledge other than looking at an O.S. map and would love to know if there have been any plans and costing for either and if/why they have been rejected.
With the "panhandle" could a second curve at Ancoats be useful to get trains from the south and airport to Victoria and miss Piccadilly/Castlefield/Ordsall completely? That could open up direct routed from, well, even Scotland, to the Airport, still call at Manchester (Vic) but avoid the jam!!

 

[railfan100]

To your last point - rubbish!

I've lived in Germany, worked in Germany and return often. Poor planning is also alive and well there!

We will have to disagree on the Germany point! Lots of good transport planning in general.

As I said in the previous posts to understand this Manchester capacity situation you have to go back 30 years to see what got us in to this mess and then understand that there are only expensive options left currently to fix this self inflicted problem that will not go away without major capital investment, platforms 15 and 16 alone are not the solution here it is a much larger strategic issue than this.

In the late 80's there was an opportunity to make a fast buck by selling off 60% approx of Victoria station for the MEN and that was taken, services were diverted as needed although this did not cause today's issue but it did indeed start the trigger due to lack of strategic long term planning. The city was boxed in a corner and immediately in late 1992 when parts of Victoria were removed (personally I think it should have had a listed status most parts of the old station and not allowed to happen). Then the flawed approach of run everything to the Airport came plus increased services to meet the demands of a very fast growing city and the rest we know. This huge error made around Victoria's capacity reduction has limited rail growth potential without spending obscene amounts of money.

The only growth the city had when the decision was made regarding Victoria was based around the future bottleneck via Piccadilly this to scale for the next 50 years or more will need many hundreds of millions of flyovers and the cost is going to be totally out of control for these to be built and it could even cost one billion or more depending on the planned flyover routes and huge undertaking required. Another option is go to where we started and regain land around Victoria and try to restore capacity to what we had circa 1991 and balance the services between the stations. Whist it may seem like a climb down and show that selling off the rail capacity land for a short term profit was at best short-sighted and ill conceived (and this is being kind) it needs to be undone. I would suggest expanding Victoria again and moving the MEN to a site further out from the city will put Manchester's rail future on a better footing for the next 50 years plus.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would suggest expanding Victoria again and moving the MEN to a site further out from the city will put Manchester's rail future on a better footing for the next 50 years plus.

Not this "old cherry" raising its head yet again...

There have been enough discussion postings on the subject of relocating the arena in the past to last a lifetime. The arena seems to be a facility that is well used and is conveniently situated in the core area of the city. Railways are not the "be all and end all" as some would like you to believe and I would not be at all surprised to see postings in the near future discussing the merits of demolishing all the new developments on the site of the former Manchester Exchange station and reinstating that railway station, stating that not only that it had through lines, but also "the Holy Grail" of west-facing terminal bay platforms. (That's before the "Lets open Manchester Central station" brigade see yet another opportunity to shake the dust from their discussion papers)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The actual platform area of Exchange is available. Or you could extend the Victoria platforms westwards in some form, there appears to be room.

 

[railfan100]

Not this "old cherry" raising its head yet again...

Railways are not the "be all and end all" as some would like you to believe

Without wishing to sound disrespectful that is the attitude that got Manchester in to this current mess, Railways are strategic National infrastructure, there are vital and key to the growth of all cities at many levels. What is your solution continue as we are? Spend a billion or maybe more on flyovers remove large parts of the city in doing so? Railways need many decades of planning present for future growth. MEN should be moved out of the city in my opinion.

 

[krus_aragon]

MEN should be moved out of the city in my opinion.

But presumably to a rail-connected location?

 

[railfan100]

But presumably to a rail-connected location?

It should indeed have a rail connection with appropriate extra capacity during events. An out of town location would also allow better access to the M60 for those that decide to drive without gridlock in the city centre.

 

[Greybeard33]

New platforms will not help.

On the contrary, P15/16 would undoubtedly help, because P13/14 are the worst bottleneck in Manchester at the moment.

That is not to say that P15/16 are all that is needed. But recent postings about other possible improvements in the Manchester area are OT for this thread. There is an open thread in the Speculative Ideas section, Proposals and ideas about Manchester area railway stations, that was previously spun off from this thread and would be an appropriate place to continue the discussion.

 

[Glenn1969]

I'm hearing that Northern has been told by NR not to bid for slots through Castlefield from the Calder Valley lines for any additional services. So the best I can hope for is that TPE might be persuaded to extend the stopper to Bradford or they reassess Castlefield priorities. I certainly want P15/16 built as soon as possible

 

[js1000]

I'm hearing that Northern has been told by NR not to bid for slots through Castlefield from the Calder Valley lines for any additional services. So the best I can hope for is that TPE might be persuaded to extend the stopper to Bradford or they reassess Castlefield priorities. I certainly want P15/16 built as soon as possible

It's proposed that the EMR service to Liverpool is partially getting the chop from December 2020. Only a few services will run from Notingham to Liverpool while the others will terminate at Piccadilly. Some say this is TOC request by EMR/TPE but can't help think Network Rail have something to do with it.

 

[gazzaa2]

It's proposed that the EMR service to Liverpool is partially getting the chop from December 2020. Only a few services will run from Notingham to Liverpool while the others will terminate at Piccadilly. Some say this is TOC request by EMR/TPE but can't help think Network Rail have something to do with it.

That Manchester-Liverpool line will be unbearable if that service goes. The Airport service rarely runs so it just leaves the Northern stopper.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's proposed that the EMR service to Liverpool is partially getting the chop from December 2020. Only a few services will run from Notingham to Liverpool while the others will terminate at Piccadilly. Some say this is TOC request by EMR/TPE but can't help think Network Rail have something to do with it.

This red herring has been throroughly discussed and debunked in the Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham thread.

 

[railfan100]

On the contrary, P15/16 would undoubtedly help, because P13/14 are the worst bottleneck in Manchester at the moment.

That is not to say that P15/16 are all that is needed.

Considering the cost of building two new platforms I do not see how this will increase capacity any more than slightly. What about the flat junctions services using the new platforms would navigate? Where is the long term planning? What is the endgame that these new platforms will deliver?

 

[railfan100]

I can hope for is that TPE might be persuaded to extend the stopper to Bradford or they reassess Castlefield priorities. I certainly want P15/16 built as soon as possible

Why do Bradford services need to pass through this congested route? Bradford services should make do with Victoria and use a 2 min trip on the Metrolink for onward travel in the city.

 

[PMN1]

Would there have been any driver for more through platforms for Manchester Piccadilly and making the Castlefield Corridor quad track from the start when they were originally built?

 

[Glenn1969]

Because we want an improved link to Piccadilly without having to use Metrolink and were promised an Airport service. Most passengers are put off by the thought of changing trains and through tickets including Metrolink are not readily available from these stations

 

[railfan100]

Would there have been any driver for more through platforms for Manchester Piccadilly and making the Castlefield Corridor quad track from the start when they were originally built?

What about the flat junctions considering the above would cost many hundreds of millions it would be eye watering you still have the flat junctions.