Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[snowball]

I disagree with suggestions from others that NR should have stalled building the Ordsall chord just because they hadn't got the go ahead for the other works required for the full Northern Hub portfolio. We must all surely remember the difficulty faced from a heritage perspective and all the negotiations and third party payments that were involved to push it through and defeat the Mark Whitby judidicial review etc. To throw that all away waiting for other elements to be approved, cancelling contracts etc would probably have killed the scheme entirely in my view..

Throughout the design and authorisation process the Ordsall Chord was one to two years ahead of the Piccadilly and Oxford Road works. For example Network Rail's application for a T&W order for the Chord was submitted in September 2013, while for Piccadilly and Oxford Road it was December 2014. I don't have the knowledge to say that should have been the other way round all along, which may be what some here are arguing, but they may be influenced by the experience of the last two or three months.

 

[edwin_m]

It occurs to me (rather late in the day) that if double-decking the Oxford Rd to Piccadilly section would have been a useful fill-in between high-level platforms built to work with grade-separated junctions at each end, then could the Ordsall Chord have been built so that it cleared (and didn't break) the access to the Liverpool Rd station/museum site? After all they would never need the clearance for OLE! Is it too late to put it back? I guess so, as I'm sure the new bridge will not be able to cope with track climbing in a southerly direction.

The Metrolink passes over Castlefield Junction so the line towards the south end of the Chord can't be raised above its current level. I assume that if there had been enough length to rise up over the museum access track then they would have done that, or at least considered it, or Whitby would have suggested it.

 

[Tomnick]

By my calculations a TPE MK5a + Class 68 set is roughly 132m long (4*22.2m trailers + 1*22.4m DT + 1*20.5m 68). A Class 397 EMU is only 118m.

The SA gives the Piccadilly platform lengths as:
P13 Up 277m
P13 Down 277m
P14 Up 265m
P14 Down 266m.
More than twice the length of the train in all cases.

So, with permissive working, will a TPE train not be able to occupy the platform at the same time as another, shorter, train?

I thought that it was a 'two block' system with the platforms effectively divided in two by the signals, meaning that if the first train stops at the front then a second can draw into the other block. However, there may be issues with overlap etc. However, a permissive 'calling on' signal aspect could still be given, and the second train stops at the first of: either the first train or the mid-platform block signal. Of course that could itself go permissive...

The general principle of operating P13/P14 is that trains run past the crowds waiting for trains in the opposite direction and stop towards the far end of the platform, beyond the mid-platform signal. Using the 'rear' half of the platform, exceptional circumstances aside, just sounds like a recipe for a real mess, with crowds of intending passengers having to move back into an already crowded portion of narrow island platform. The mid-platform signals don't really seem to be intended to get a second train in on top of another (the normal stopping position of trains leaves them foul of the overlap), but rather to get that second train in more quickly as the first departs.

Neither platform can really be worked permissively either - there's no 'calling on' routes into the 'near' end of either platform in either direction. Even if it were provided, using permissive working to get a second train in on top on a regular basis really would stuff the capacity!

 

[notlob.divad]

As an northerner living in London to help sort these southerners out, I am back up north regularly for work (real work southerners, not speculation based betting that damages the real economy). I have been through Manchester travelling to Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Airport, Leeds etc several times over the last couple of months. Every journey has fallen apart in Manchester.

I personally do not understand how anybody thought it was remotely feasible to de-couple the building of the chord and the extra platforms at Piccadilly. Piccadilly platforms 13/14 have been a critical point of failure for the whole northern network for ages. That aside from the overcrowding and exceptionally poor customer information and experience for such heavily used, multi-destination platforms (possibly one of the most diverse set of destinations for one set of platforms in the country?)

I get the purpose of the chord, and I broadly agree with the logic, but not without massive improvement on platforms 13/14 (as in a new platforms 15/16). Even more frustratingly, the land is sitting there ready for new structures - a relatively rare luxury for city-centre projects.

Last week I picked up a 35 minute delay from Leeds between Ashton and the Airport, and my train terminated at platform 13 and so I had to change on to another train. I then watched 5 trains arrive and terminate, some planned and some un-planned, hundreds of people stuffed onto a crap little bit of infrastructure. The crowds grew, people became stressed and then an Airport stopper arrived and not everybody could get on. This is what happens at those platforms, lots of trains, lots of destinations, lots of soaking up of sins on other parts of the network. It is basically an oversoaked sponge for the whole northern network and with 2 platforms it will always, always, act as a critical point of failure, even more so with the chord. Any statistician would be able to work out that there are just too many variables at play for any capacity theory to hold good. Thameslink has spent billions on dealing with a similar but less variable set of circumstances. It has a uniform fleet, 1 (poor) operator, less destinations (even with new additions) expensive station infrastructure, many more platform staff and a state of the art signalling system and a 2 way flow. People also tend to get off and leave the stations - in Manchester, many people change at these platforms. Central Manchester is now a giant railway roundabout, and that has all sorts of implications.

We had a northern and transpennine train dispatcher shouting at each other 'is this one of yours'; 'I don't know - think so' before trains arrived and when I asked if the next train might make it to the airport he called was control they actually said...'how late is it on the board?' - '6 minutes' - 'er, maybe'.

Anybody on here who says 13/14 can cope in any circumstances in living in fantasy land - even before the chord. There is always a point when one has to say theory is lovely but reality and the importance of a particular piece of network mean that you build N+1, maybe even N+2 for such an important bit of the network.

I see this as a massive failing of the whole system. DfT take full responsibility as they commissioned the chord but NR come a close second. TfN should have spotted this one earlier on and should have been banging on the DfT's door for a couple of years now. Also, people need to understand that delay analysis is not likely to throw up the whole picture. There is a real ripple problem here - platforms 13/14 are often not the cause of delays, but they add further delay and spreads them to other services. It is like a cholera laden water pump (as well as a sponge).

Things will get worse very soon. Longer TP trains will mean the notional separation of trains on 13/14 to either end of the respective platform will fall apart, meaning even more crush on the platforms and confusion for people getting off the train as all the platform infrastructure presumes the seperation. The whole thing is a predictable and unforgivable farce that shows the total lack of intelligence never mind experience from all involved in the decision making.

For me, the first 3 projects that should be commissioned on resilience for the northern network are re-signalling the core TP route between Huddersfield (maybe even Leeds - not sure of the capability of that section) and Manchester - the reversal of the bloody stupid re-alignment at Stalybridge which somehow didn't see the chord coming (and docking of NR pay for this one) but most importantly, platforms 15 and 16. I would arrange 13-16 so that you have:
- all airport services on 13 (unless somebody could tell me that there are any express airports that overtake stoppers once they have left Manchester);
- all other eastbound on 14;
- all express westbound on 15;
- all stoppers on 16.

and big screens making this really clear.

There are also some short term fixes that will help:

- big screens along the length of the platform flashing in bold colours things to support more detailed screens like 'Airport train' - 'train terminates here - do not board' - 'next train on this platform is to.....' - 'information change - next train is to x and not x - stay on the platform for x'. I would employ a dedicated person to be on the platform liaising with control and putting these bespoke messages out.
- make sure infrastructure is improved to acknowledge longer trains;
- making it very clear what a train length is a where to stand to reduce dwell times;
- if there is one set of platforms to re-introduce porters on the platform to help people get their luggage off it is this one. Lots of older people, airport passenger etc. This all extends dwell times.

Basically, current 13/14 need to pull every dwell time reduction trick out of the book (except the shouting at fare paying passengers one which the default at the moment) and then the planners need to launch a competition to work out how to build the new infrastructure without needing to close current 13/14 except for a few blockades, not easy but no more complicated than lots that has been done at London Bridge.

Finally, someone speaks some sense. The only thing I quibble with, if there wasn't an ordsall chord, there would be no need for eastbound trains on platform 14. Eastbound would go from the main shed, all westbound would go from 14.

 

[CJ]

When you look at the effect the Ordsall Chord is having on so many services and journeys, and the effect the airport service is having on places like eg Gatley’s local services (incredibly Gatley has no Piccadilly service in the peak between 0705 and 0747 - that should make anyone who knows the place take a sharp intake of breath) it makes you realise afresh the distortion the Airport destination is creating on travel & travel strategy in the region. I just had a look at the Styal line local timetable for the first time in years having lived there a while ago, and was really surprised how it had degraded.

If I remember correctly, before the May timetable change, Gatley used to have the following trains between 07:00-09:30:

- 07:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)
- 07:45 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 07:52 (Manchester Piccadilly) (319, 4-Car)
- 08:02 (Blackpool North) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)
- 08:32 (Blackpool North) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:52 (Manchester Piccadilly) (319, 4-Car)
- 09:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)

After the May timetable, it is now:

- 07:05 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 07:47 (Preston) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:06 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 08:22 (Newcastle) (185, 3-Car)
- 09:06 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)

The 08:22 is a TPE service and has often been cancelled due to the train terminating at Manchester Piccadilly from its previous journey (often due to late inbound service), leaving no train towards Manchester at all between 08:06 - 09:06. Perhaps TPE should call additionally at Gatley with another service between these times should it be cancelled, or even Northern call additionally.

 

[B&I]

As an northerner living in London to help sort these southerners out, I am back up north regularly for work (real work southerners, not speculation based betting that damages the real economy). I have been through Manchester travelling to Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Airport, Leeds etc several times over the last couple of months. Every journey has fallen apart in Manchester.

I personally do not understand how anybody thought it was remotely feasible to de-couple the building of the chord and the extra platforms at Piccadilly. Piccadilly platforms 13/14 have been a critical point of failure for the whole northern network for ages. That aside from the overcrowding and exceptionally poor customer information and experience for such heavily used, multi-destination platforms (possibly one of the most diverse set of destinations for one set of platforms in the country?)

I get the purpose of the chord, and I broadly agree with the logic, but not without massive improvement on platforms 13/14 (as in a new platforms 15/16). Even more frustratingly, the land is sitting there ready for new structures - a relatively rare luxury for city-centre projects.

Last week I picked up a 35 minute delay from Leeds between Ashton and the Airport, and my train terminated at platform 13 and so I had to change on to another train. I then watched 5 trains arrive and terminate, some planned and some un-planned, hundreds of people stuffed onto a crap little bit of infrastructure. The crowds grew, people became stressed and then an Airport stopper arrived and not everybody could get on. This is what happens at those platforms, lots of trains, lots of destinations, lots of soaking up of sins on other parts of the network. It is basically an oversoaked sponge for the whole northern network and with 2 platforms it will always, always, act as a critical point of failure, even more so with the chord. Any statistician would be able to work out that there are just too many variables at play for any capacity theory to hold good. Thameslink has spent billions on dealing with a similar but less variable set of circumstances. It has a uniform fleet, 1 (poor) operator, less destinations (even with new additions) expensive station infrastructure, many more platform staff and a state of the art signalling system and a 2 way flow. People also tend to get off and leave the stations - in Manchester, many people change at these platforms. Central Manchester is now a giant railway roundabout, and that has all sorts of implications.

We had a northern and transpennine train dispatcher shouting at each other 'is this one of yours'; 'I don't know - think so' before trains arrived and when I asked if the next train might make it to the airport he called was control they actually said...'how late is it on the board?' - '6 minutes' - 'er, maybe'.

Anybody on here who says 13/14 can cope in any circumstances in living in fantasy land - even before the chord. There is always a point when one has to say theory is lovely but reality and the importance of a particular piece of network mean that you build N+1, maybe even N+2 for such an important bit of the network.

I see this as a massive failing of the whole system. DfT take full responsibility as they commissioned the chord but NR come a close second. TfN should have spotted this one earlier on and should have been banging on the DfT's door for a couple of years now. Also, people need to understand that delay analysis is not likely to throw up the whole picture. There is a real ripple problem here - platforms 13/14 are often not the cause of delays, but they add further delay and spreads them to other services. It is like a cholera laden water pump (as well as a sponge).

Things will get worse very soon. Longer TP trains will mean the notional separation of trains on 13/14 to either end of the respective platform will fall apart, meaning even more crush on the platforms and confusion for people getting off the train as all the platform infrastructure presumes the seperation. The whole thing is a predictable and unforgivable farce that shows the total lack of intelligence never mind experience from all involved in the decision making.

For me, the first 3 projects that should be commissioned on resilience for the northern network are re-signalling the core TP route between Huddersfield (maybe even Leeds - not sure of the capability of that section) and Manchester - the reversal of the bloody stupid re-alignment at Stalybridge which somehow didn't see the chord coming (and docking of NR pay for this one) but most importantly, platforms 15 and 16. I would arrange 13-16 so that you have:
- all airport services on 13 (unless somebody could tell me that there are any express airports that overtake stoppers once they have left Manchester);
- all other eastbound on 14;
- all express westbound on 15;
- all stoppers on 16.

and big screens making this really clear.

There are also some short term fixes that will help:

- big screens along the length of the platform flashing in bold colours things to support more detailed screens like 'Airport train' - 'train terminates here - do not board' - 'next train on this platform is to.....' - 'information change - next train is to x and not x - stay on the platform for x'. I would employ a dedicated person to be on the platform liaising with control and putting these bespoke messages out.
- make sure infrastructure is improved to acknowledge longer trains;
- making it very clear what a train length is a where to stand to reduce dwell times;
- if there is one set of platforms to re-introduce porters on the platform to help people get their luggage off it is this one. Lots of older people, airport passenger etc. This all extends dwell times.

Basically, current 13/14 need to pull every dwell time reduction trick out of the book (except the shouting at fare paying passengers one which the default at the moment) and then the planners need to launch a competition to work out how to build the new infrastructure without needing to close current 13/14 except for a few blockades, not easy but no more complicated than lots that has been done at London Bridge.

Next time you are down south, sorting out southerners, can you visit one particular southerner in Epsom, and beat him round his stupid bald heid with your post until he sees the sense of what you are saying ?

 

[Greybeard33]

Neither platform can really be worked permissively either - there's no 'calling on' routes into the 'near' end of either platform in either direction. Even if it were provided, using permissive working to get a second train in on top on a regular basis really would stuff the capacity!

So why does the SA list both platforms as "Permissive PP-C" in both directions? Does "Contingency" not cover calling on a second train on top if the first has an excessive dwell time, e.g. due to terminating short?

 

[158756]

If I remember correctly, before the May timetable change, Gatley used to have the following trains between 07:00-09:30:

- 07:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)
- 07:45 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 07:52 (Manchester Piccadilly) (319, 4-Car)
- 08:02 (Blackpool North) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)
- 08:32 (Blackpool North) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:52 (Manchester Piccadilly) (319, 4-Car)
- 09:23 (Manchester Piccadilly) (323, 3-Car)

After the May timetable, it is now:

- 07:05 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 07:47 (Preston) (156, 4-Car)
- 08:06 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)
- 08:22 (Newcastle) (185, 3-Car)
- 09:06 (Liverpool Lime Street) (319, 4-Car)

The 08:22 is a TPE service and has often been cancelled due to the train terminating at Manchester Piccadilly from its previous journey (often due to late inbound service), leaving no train towards Manchester at all between 08:06 - 09:06. Perhaps TPE should call additionally at Gatley with another service between these times should it be cancelled, or even Northern call additionally.

The lack of a 08:47 is odd - the train to Preston and beyond usually calls at Heald Green, Gatley and Burnage, but this particular one, at peak commuting time, calls only at Heald Green, having 3.5 minutes of pathing allowance instead of the other stops, which seems to only achieve the purpose of putting it back in the path it would have been in had it made the stops.

There isn't really space in the current timetable to add stops to anything else - the turnarounds are too short. What it needs is a timetable properly planned, not thrown together in panic in a few weeks - but there is of course now no appetite to change timetables on a large scale.

 

[Tomnick]

So why does the SA list both platforms as "Permissive PP-C" in both directions? Does "Contingency" not cover calling on a second train on top if the first has an excessive dwell time, e.g. due to terminating short?

If I’m not mistaken, it is possible to receive a calling-on indication at the mid-platform signals into the ‘far’ end of the platform (but not into the ‘near’ end), so I suppose you could draw the terminating service right down to get the next one drawn up behind. I’m not convinced that it’d be much help in anything resembling normal operation though. Most signalling installations now won’t let you have the platform starting signal cleared with a second train signalled in permissively, so you’d just end up delaying the first one further so the second would have to wait for it to get clear anyway.

 

[MarkyT]

If I’m not mistaken, it is possible to receive a calling-on indication at the mid-platform signals into the ‘far’ end of the platform (but not into the ‘near’ end), so I suppose you could draw the terminating service right down to get the next one drawn up behind. I’m not convinced that it’d be much help in anything resembling normal operation though. Most signalling installations now won’t let you have the platform starting signal cleared with a second train signalled in permissively, so you’d just end up delaying the first one further so the second would have to wait for it to get clear anyway.

And the converse is true that if a permissive move is already signalled in to rear, the platform starter ahead is held at red until the permissive train has fully entered the platform and come to a stand. Known as "Huddersfield Controls", after the site where first applied, it is a standard requirement in new installations and has been for more than two decades. Even without Huddersfield controls, two trains in a platform by means of permissive working or mid platform signals is of limited value if there are further closely following trains behind as the second one into the rear end has to move clear the full platform before the next one can access the forward section. Nothing beats the capacity, flexibility and convenience of two separate tracks per direction either side of a common island.

 

[XDM]

And the converse is true that if a permissive move is already signalled in to rear, the platform starter ahead is held at red until the permissive train has fully entered the platform and come to a stand. Known as "Huddersfield Controls", where it was first applied, it is a standard requirement in new installations and has been for more than two decades. Even without Huddersfield controls, two trains in a platform by means of permissive working or mid platform signals is of limited value if there are further closely following trains behind as the second one into the rear end has to move clear the full platform before the next one can access the forward section. Nothing beats the capacity and flexibility of two separate tracks per direction either side of a common island.

I agree with MarkyT of the huge benefits of 2 separate tracks per direction as demonstated many times an hour on the new Charing Cross up & down lines at London Bridge, & at Reading.

But.. if there is full ATO which we seem to be on the brink of, then perhaps automatic trains can be trusted to operate without need of "Huddersfield controls", & permissive moves without risk will be the norm. That would do the same job of two islands without the massive cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- all airport services on 13 (unless somebody could tell me that there are any express airports that overtake stoppers once they have left Manchester);
- all other eastbound on 14;
- all express westbound on 15;
- all stoppers on 16.

I wouldn't, I'd look at the operations at Schiphol where the main displays show which *island* it's going to be, and the train is just put into whichever side is free when it arrives, so alternating on actual order of arrival rather than timetabled order of arrival. So the main PIS would just say "13/14" (Eastbound) or "15/16" (Westbound), and clear displays all along those platforms would point to which side it is once the train is signalled in.

It would be great if Oxford Road could also be rebuilt to two islands to allow that method of operation there, though sadly I suspect that would not be feasible as the viaduct is probably not wide enough to move the tracks out (I think the platforms hang off it).

 

[Tomnick]

I wouldn't, I'd look at the operations at Schiphol where the main displays show which *island* it's going to be, and the train is just put into whichever side is free when it arrives, so alternating on actual order of arrival rather than timetabled order of arrival. So the main PIS would just say "13/14" (Eastbound) or "15/16" (Westbound), and clear displays all along those platforms would point to which side it is once the train is signalled in.

It would be great if Oxford Road could also be rebuilt to two islands to allow that method of operation there, though sadly I suspect that would not be feasible as the viaduct is probably not wide enough to move the tracks out (I think the platforms hang off it).

I agree. Alternating trains between opposite sides of the same island maximises throughput. As soon as you have a train sitting outside waiting for the "correct" platform, despite the opposite platform being empty, you're losing capacity.

If anything, given the long and narrow shape of the existing island (which would, of course, be south-/east-bound), I'd suggest generally stopping Airport trains at the 'near' end of the platform and letting all others run to the 'far' end of the platform, whichever side they come in on. That'd help to segregate the crowds to a certain extent, at least.

 

[MarkyT]

I wouldn't, I'd look at the operations at Schiphol where the main displays show which *island* it's going to be, and the train is just put into whichever side is free when it arrives, so alternating on actual order of arrival rather than timetabled order of arrival. So the main PIS would just say "13/14" (Eastbound) or "15/16" (Westbound), and clear displays all along those platforms would point to which side it is once the train is signalled in.

It would be great if Oxford Road could also be rebuilt to two islands to allow that method of operation there, though sadly I suspect that would not be feasible as the viaduct is probably not wide enough to move the tracks out (I think the platforms hang off it).

Agree entirely with that, but as you say the twin island configuration would have been extraordinarily expensive and disruptive at Oxford Road. Replatforming there is likely to be fairly common based on actual arrival order so I expect savvy regular users will learn to wait on the overbridge until their train is approaching. I hope NR has designed a suitably sized bridge to cope with that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree entirely with that, but as you say the twin island configuration would have been extraordinarily expensive and disruptive at Oxford Road. Replatforming there is likely to be fairly common based on actual arrival order so I expect savvy regular users will learn to wait on the overbridge until their train is approaching. I hope NR has designed a suitably sized bridge to cope with that.

Given the lack of platform space, a very wide bridge (Reading style) with seating, displays, lifts and escalators might be a very good plan, now you say it, moving (like the aim was for 13/14) the primary waiting space to be the bridge.

 

[MarkyT]

Given the lack of platform space, a very wide bridge (Reading style) with seating, displays, lifts and escalators might be a very good plan, now you say it, moving (like the aim was for 13/14) the primary waiting space to be the bridge.

And there would be an incentive to stay up on the bridge unlike at 13/14 today. Perhaps people heading east, especially those who need to use time consuming lifts and have got to the station in good time might be encouraged to take the first train forward from any platform at Oxford Road as far as Piccadilly where they could wait conveniently on the island for their particular train whichever track it eventually appears on. Thus they wouldn't be faced with an unexpected last minute transfer over the bridge at Oxford Road (with the high likelyhood of then missing their train).

 

[MarkyT]

If anything, given the long and narrow shape of the existing island (which would, of course, be south-/east-bound), I'd suggest generally stopping Airport trains at the 'near' end of the platform and letting all others run to the 'far' end of the platform, whichever side they come in on. That'd help to segregate the crowds to a certain extent, at least.

That makes sense, and with mid-platform signals/block markers you might be able to retain the ability to accept two trains into each platform where they arrive in the right order for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That makes sense, and with mid-platform signals/block markers you might be able to retain the ability to accept two trains into each platform where they arrive in the right order for that.

Though the big downside of that is that an alteration from 13/14a to b is a lot of faffing compared with a cross platform one.

 

[Greybeard33]

Even without Huddersfield controls, two trains in a platform by means of permissive working or mid platform signals is of limited value if there are further closely following trains behind as the second one into the rear end has to move clear the full platform before the next one can access the forward section. Nothing beats the capacity, flexibility and convenience of two separate tracks per direction either side of a common island.

Yes, clearly two tracks are better than one. However, surely the split platforms at Piccadilly have some value compared with a single shorter one? Particularly if the forward section is occupied by a short train that can stop clear of the overlap of the mid platform signal? Then a second train can follow it into the rear section and be ready to depart as soon as the first train clears the next block section, giving a shorter headway than if the platform were only occupied by one train at a time.

For maximum throughput, trains would ideally be "flighted" into the platform in pairs, giving alternating short and long headways throughout the standard hour. Roughly half the improvement that can be achieved with two separate platforms.

In the real world, there must at least be some limited value in terms of flexibility/resilience, which will be helped by the new TPE trains being short enough to fit into half the platform.

 

[keith1879]

I can't decide whether this would help or not....but assuming that PP15/16 don't happen would there be any benefit in operations from closing Oxford Road and providing a Travelator link from Piccadilly? There would still be too many trains trying to use Piccadilly but at least we would have removed an additional delay point. Obviously there are a lot of passengers using Oxford Road and I don't really like the idea - just trying to come up with an alternative idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't decide whether this would help or not....but assuming that PP15/16 don't happen would there be any benefit in operations from closing Oxford Road

No. Closing a 4-platform intermediate station would be very foolish; it would make the problem worse, not better.

 

[Greybeard33]

No. Closing a 4-platform intermediate station would be very foolish; it would make the problem worse, not better.

IMO TPE should reinstate the Oxford Road calls on its Scottish services. People who used to use Oxford Road now have to go to Piccadilly, worsening the overcrowding on P13/14.

The extra stop would not increase journey time much, because dwell time at Piccadilly would improve.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The extra stop would not increase journey time much, because dwell time at Piccadilly would improve.

Perhaps yes on the peak time services, but on most other services I don't think so. Having stops only at peak hours would probably be confusing, especially given the situation will hopefully improve in May (or even earlier?).

 

[urbophile]

I can't decide whether this would help or not....but assuming that PP15/16 don't happen would there be any benefit in operations from closing Oxford Road and providing a Travelator link from Piccadilly? There would still be too many trains trying to use Piccadilly but at least we would have removed an additional delay point. Obviously there are a lot of passengers using Oxford Road and I don't really like the idea - just trying to come up with an alternative idea.

Wouldn't a more (though still not very) sensible solution be to close Piccadilly 13/14 and provide a travelator to Piccadilly? At least there would be more platforms to choose from.

 

[keith1879]

No. Closing a 4-platform intermediate station would be very foolish; it would make the problem worse, not better.

Presumably it can help to even the flow of trains in each direction by splitting between platforms. Having said that .... it also adds to delays by giving another location where crowds of people can make a train late. I'm not proposing it as an idea - just trying to learn some lessons.

 

[keith1879]

Wouldn't a more (though still not very) sensible solution be to close Piccadilly 13/14 and provide a travelator to Piccadilly? At least there would be more platforms to choose from.

Yes - that would work better in my view.

 

[Tomnick]

Yes, clearly two tracks are better than one. However, surely the split platforms at Piccadilly have some value compared with a single shorter one? Particularly if the forward section is occupied by a short train that can stop clear of the overlap of the mid platform signal? Then a second train can follow it into the rear section and be ready to depart as soon as the first train clears the next block section, giving a shorter headway than if the platform were only occupied by one train at a time.

For maximum throughput, trains would ideally be "flighted" into the platform in pairs, giving alternating short and long headways throughout the standard hour. Roughly half the improvement that can be achieved with two separate platforms.

In the real world, there must at least be some limited value in terms of flexibility/resilience, which will be helped by the new TPE trains being short enough to fit into half the platform.

I’m not convinced. The dwell time is one of the big constraints on capacity, and I’m pretty sure that it’d be better overall to have the second train held back for another half minute or so than to release the doors at the mid-platform signal and then have to wait for the crowds to shuffle along a narrow platform that’s already crowded with passengers heading in the opposite direction, no doubt then queuing en-masse to use only the first set of doors. It might make sense for a terminating (short) service, but then it’d be better if the underlying issues were sorted so that there weren’t so many Airport service terminating there!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the DfT don't want to stump up for 2 new platforms, how viable would it be to provide (non-platform) bypass lines alongside P13 & 14? Coupled with the mid-platform signals and scissor crossovers, this would allow 2 trains to occupy each platform but would also allow the train in the rear to move out onto the bypass line, rather than being held until the train in front has departed. I'm thinking along the lines of how the middle tracks are used at Leeds, allowing more flexible use of the platforms. I could see platform 12 being a problem but AIUI it's barely used anyway.

 

[Altfish]

A travellator from Piccadilly to Oxford Road sounds great but where would it go??
It is about 1/2 mile distance, it needs to be wide enough to let 'fast' passengers pass slower ones, it needs two lanes, it needs to be covered. I suspect it would be almost as cheap to build platforms 15 and 16.

 

[snowball]

If the DfT don't want to stump up for 2 new platforms, how viable would it be to provide (non-platform) bypass lines alongside P13 & 14?

I imagine it would be well over half of the cost of the original scheme as it would still involve widening the viaduct, while doing nothing to relieve the crowding of passengers on the platform.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, the full scheme only widens the viaduct at Piccadilly on the south side, by adding a second island platform and two new tracks. If you do part of that widening you can provide a relief track for westbound trains but what do you do for eastbound ones? Theoretically you could move the existing island southwards but it would add to the cost.

I imagine you can't widen the viaduct on the north side because the 12 terminal platforms are in the way.