Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Bletchleyite]

I remember some time ago standing on 13 looking towards 12 and suspecting you could, if you sacrificed both 11 and 12 and moved the bridge supports, fit in an eastbound platform of about 3 coaches in length. But things have moved on, and that would be insufficient for many trains, so really it's the full project or nowt.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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.

When I suggested it I was well aware that it wouldn't provide the benefits that the full scheme would... but government spending policy for years has seemed quite happy to spend only 60% of the optimum scheme, even if doing so only provides 40% of the benefits. It's the old "costs versus values" thing again.

 

[js1000]

On platform 13/14 at Piccadilly at half 3 today. Granted it was chaos due to delays to Manchester Airport after an OHLE power cut in the morning and there was a backlog of trains.

Dispatcher blew whistle. Didn't stop more people legging it down the steps with luggage in tow. Another was looking at the door scratching his head wondering "is this train going to the Airport? Should I board it?" Train was held a full minute longer after the dispatcher blew his whistle.

Extrapolate that over the course of the day and you understand why are substantial delays through Manchester everyday. It's full of idiots - primarily tourists who are not au fait with Piccadilly and have absolutely no idea where they are going or what train to get on.

The next train, Northern commuter 319 stopping train to Crewe via the Airport - straight off, straight on - mostly locals who knew what they were doing. All took less than a minute compared with the 4-5 minutes for the already delayed TPE express train to the airport.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Not much room between 12 and 13 as you say. The problem is (IIRC) that the roof structure to the main station is supported from the edge of platform 12.
On the other side, you'd have to extend the viaduct/bridge section. If you are doing that you might as well build a platform and two lines.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not much room between 12 and 13 as you say. The problem is (IIRC) that the roof structure to the main station is supported from the edge of platform 12.
On the other side, you'd have to extend the viaduct/bridge section. If you are doing that you might as well build a platform and two lines.

Quite. And any new scheme would have to start from square one, going through the whole Network Rail GRIP process and planning approval all over again. So it would take several years longer than if the SoS simply signed off the existing P15/16 scheme, which is "shovel ready".

 

[HowardGWR]

Extrapolate that over the course of the day and you understand why are substantial delays through Manchester everyday. It's full of idiots - primarily tourists who are not au fait with Piccadilly and have absolutely no idea where they are going or what train to get on.

Just for clarification, why would you consider the quoted tourists in this situation to be 'idiots'?

 

[edwin_m]

Quite. And any new scheme would have to start from square one, going through the whole Network Rail GRIP process and planning approval all over again. So it would take several years longer than if the SoS simply signed off the existing P15/16 scheme, which is "shovel ready".

Perhaps that's why Network Rail's offices on the other side of the station are known as Square One?

 

[nuneatonmark]

Maybe they should just reopen Manchester Central

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe they should just reopen Manchester Central

It is open for Party Conferences and other events and looks better in 2018 than it has done for years.

 

[Chester1]

Maybe they should just reopen Manchester Central

I hope that is a joke! Too many people on this site can't see why thats never going to be the cheapest or best solution to any rail problem.

Edit: that and reopening Mayfield. Any solution needs to free up paths through Slade Lane. The simplest way to add terminating capacity on the Castlefield corridor would be to reopen platform 6 at Oxford Road.

 

[Tomnick]

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.

Again, I'm not convinced that it'd really help, although it's a very interesting thought (space constraints aside!). It'd just give you the problem of conflicting moves, so the second train (in the rear part of the platform) would then have to wait until the third train has crossed in front of it, the third train then having to wait for the second to get clear, and so on. The biggest problem would still be the movement of crowds in both directions along the full length of the narrow platform though.

 

[modernrail]

Can somebody please remind me what the current estimated cost for platforms 15/16 is and how much has been spent to date?

I am at the stage where I do not believe that any of NR's costings are anywhere near optimised and think a major change is required in how these projects are procured. NR are simply not fit for purpose on these medium size schemes although perhaps the Alliance contracting method used on the chord might be considered to have worked well. It does not mean that the original costings are as low as they could be though - we cannot go on accepting that projects in the UK must cost more than equivalent projects on the continent. You obviously need to normalise for land costs which are higher in the UK as we are a stupid nation that doesn't care about its own children (or in fact anybody under 40 who needs housing and money to bring up a family and save something for a rainy day and a pension). After that though we should be taking pride in delivering schemes at a lower cost than the continent because we are meant to be British and amazing and not need to collaborate with our European cousins and all that nonsense. Instead, taxpayers fund over the odds for badly designed schemes that are delivered dreadfully in some cases, often because nobody in the chain really cares enough about taxpayer value or the national objective of helping people and good move around a the lowest cost possible.

Travel to much smaller cities, like Malmo in Sweden, Zurich in Switzerland and many others and they have put their through lines underground often with 4 to 6 platforms. Instead we have filthy, smelly, noisy diesels chugging into poor infrastructure that is being poorly run day to day. A lot of people need to get a grip and start acting in a professional manner befitting of their positions.

I endured yet another poor TP journey yesterday, this time stopping at every signal between Huddersfield and Ashton. That particular problem has been there for years and should have been sorted years ago. A couple of passing loops installed 10 years ago would probably have meant lots of the delays of the last 10 years would not have happened or at least not to the extent they have. Pathetic really.

 

[js1000]

Just for clarification, why would you consider the quoted tourists in this situation to be 'idiots'?

Not necessarily but you know what I meant.

Not knowing where they are going. Hogging platform space with their luggage. Holding up trains when the dispatcher has whistled.

Platforms 13/14, the latter particularly, are dangerous. If it continues at the current rate and more tph are put through Piccadilly then it's only a matter of time before someone accidentally falls onto the track due to the lack of platform space. God forbid it happens on Platform 13 (would make sense wouldn't it?) because the driver will have no time to react with it being on a blind bend.

Then maybe Grayling and Dft might actually do something.

Someone on Skyscrapercity forum put the situation well:

The situation re. Platform 14 is an absolute and utter disgrace, to the point of being downright dangerous. The idea of opening the Ordsall Chord and diverting all the TP North trains through P14, without building the necessary infrastructure (P15 and 16 & Oxford Road expansion), was absolutely crackers. There just isn’t enough space. By the time the delayed Glasgow train arrived, the platform was about 10 people deep trying to access it, and trying to find their reserved seats. Total and utter chaos. God help the poor souls who had just arrived into Picc from the Airport with huge suitcases, trying to battle through the oncoming crowds. (As a side note there is no clear signage to the lift which means the natural reaction is to attempt to pull your suitcase up the stairs, creating further chaos for people trying to access the platform).

What an absolutely embarrassing introduction to Manchester from those who have arrived in the city, for the first time, on an “express” service from the airport. The train up to Glasgow was a 4 car 350 - way too small a train for a service which is packed with commuters travelling to Preston. The lack of calls at Oxford Road and Wigan has not made a significant difference to capacity it seems. The introduction of 5 car 397s, will be too little, too late, especially if the services call at Bolton. We need 8 car services on this line (as a minimum).

Platform 15 and 16 need to happen for passenger safety/accessibility reasons, regardless of capacity increases, or lack thereof. Whether or not we we are able to get more services passing through is largely irrelevant IMO

 

[Senex]

After that though we should be taking pride in delivering schemes at a lower cost than the continent because we are meant to be British and amazing and not need to collaborate with our European cousins and all that nonsense. Instead, taxpayers fund over the odds for badly designed schemes that are delivered dreadfully in some cases, often because nobody in the chain really cares enough about taxpayer value or the national objective of helping people and good move around a the lowest cost possible.

Up to the First World War we do seem to have been open to learning from others, and in the latter part of the C19 a number of the railway companies sent senior staff across the Atlantic to see if there were lessons to be learnt (as well as people routinely travelling into Europe, of course). But after that our railways seem to have become very insular, the attitude being that we invented them and we have nothing to learn from anyone else. That attitude seemed to harden after WW2. And it took an awfully long time for Britain to open up to foreign railway suppliers (especially in the case of signalling). Meanwhile, we happily went on squandering huge amounts of money. Dieselisation? The marshalling yards? Stop-go electrification? And all the rest of it.

Travel to much smaller cities, like Malmo in Sweden, Zurich in Switzerland and many others and they have put their through lines underground often with 4 to 6 platforms. Instead we have filthy, smelly, noisy diesels chugging into poor infrastructure that is being poorly run day to day. A lot of people need to get a grip and start acting in a professional manner befitting of their positions.

But this is Britain — every penny of investment for the major cities outside London bitterly resented, and schemes cut back to the bare bones or provided from the start to a minimum specification with no scope for growth and no buffer for reliability. I wonder what those who planned and built the Manchester South Junction line in the 1840s would have thought if they could have known that basically their infrastructure is expected to cope with hugely more traffic today with just the same two tracks.

 

[DimTim]

In his interview on Breakfast this morning Grayling appeared to suggest the TWAO was still being considered but Manchester City Council was objecting - one reason he will not make decision.

 

[Chester1]

In his interview on Breakfast this morning Grayling appeared to suggest the TWAO was still being considered but Manchester City Council was objecting.

The simplest solution would be to reduce the services to 10tph i.e. the 8tph run until recently + the 2tph through Ordsall. I think he might simply bow to political pressure and approve it knowing that someone else will DfT SoS by the time the platforms open so any problems 16tph through Piccadilly causes will be someone else's problem.

One thing that has occurred to me is that if Piccadilly P15 and P16 are built, Oxford Road is rebuilt and a chord built to connect the CLC and WCML to divert Trafford Park freight, then 18tph could run through Piccadilly. The capacity constraint through Slade Lane would remain meaning that there would be 6tph fewer services using the main shed which would probably be enough to allow platforms 1-4 to be taken out of use and be rebuilt for HS2. Not building a big extension of Piccadilly for HS2 would probably more than pay for those projects.

 

[The Planner]

How would you get HS2 into platforms 1 to 4 with its dedicated line?

 

[Altfish]

HS2 platforms need to be about twice the length of 'normal' platforms. Using Platforms 1 to 4 wouldn't work

 

[Chester1]

How would you get HS2 into platforms 1 to 4 with its dedicated line?

HS2 platforms need to be about twice the length of 'normal' platforms. Using Platforms 1 to 4 wouldn't work

I would slightly alter the tunnel route and the angle (but not location) of the portal. 1-4 tracks turn in towards the approach to platform 5 pretty quickly so seperating them would not effect the layout of the approaches to 5-12. I think the approach route would be through the RoC which would be expensive to move. The current plan will be extremely expensive though and the land around Piccadilly is becoming more valuable to developers.

 

[Ploughman]

Would remodelling the South side of the train shed be possible?
Thinking if a line could be brought in before P13 and bridge Fairfield St then through the side of the station wall and use a rebuilt platform 10 or so.

I know stupid thought.

 

[Altfish]

I would slightly alter the tunnel route and the angle (but not location) of the portal. 1-4 tracks turn in towards the approach to platform 5 pretty quickly so seperating them would not effect the layout of the approaches to 5-12. I think the approach route would be through the RoC which would be expensive to move. The current plan will be extremely expensive though and the land around Piccadilly is becoming more valuable to developers.

Not sure, even allowing for less normal London trains, the remaining platforms will be sufficient. I think I'm right in saying that 9, 10, 11 and 12 are all fed off one incoming track. Platform 12 is not much use anyway.
Currently 1 to 4 tend to be used for Sheffield, Marple and Leeds and beyond traffic; 5, 6, 7 are Cross Country, Virgin and some Northern plus local stuff going through Stockport, 8-11 are Airport, Crewe and ATW trains. 12 is not used much although since timetable changes there have been some additional services sent there, I think Crewe via the Styal line.
Obviously those are strictly adhered to but I don't see a lot of scope for losing 4 platforms to accommodate HS2

 

[Altfish]

Would remodelling the South side of the train shed be possible?
Thinking if a line could be brought in before P13 and bridge Fairfield St then through the side of the station wall and use a rebuilt platform 10 or so.

I know stupid thought.

Anything is possible but the train shed (possibly listed??) is supported on platform 12, so to reconfigure 11 and 12 would be very expensive.

 

[js1000]

The simplest solution would be to reduce the services to 10tph i.e. the 8tph run until recently + the 2tph through Ordsall. I think he might simply bow to political pressure and approve it knowing that someone else will DfT SoS by the time the platforms open so any problems 16tph through Piccadilly causes will be someone else's problem.

One thing that has occurred to me is that if Piccadilly P15 and P16 are built, Oxford Road is rebuilt and a chord built to connect the CLC and WCML to divert Trafford Park freight, then 18tph could run through Piccadilly. The capacity constraint through Slade Lane would remain meaning that there would be 6tph fewer services using the main shed which would probably be enough to allow platforms 1-4 to be taken out of use and be rebuilt for HS2. Not building a big extension of Piccadilly for HS2 would probably more than pay for those projects.

Offset the cost of rail projects through Manchester by converting existing platforms? It sounds nice in principle although I would have a few observations:

- A purpose-built HS2 station would be preferable as the new dedicated HS line which also has to be tunnelled from just outside Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. Sharing it with existing lines and at high level (which Piccadilly and its approach is located) would complicate that.

- I believe platforms 10-12 cannot accommodate the 9/11 coach Pendolinos. If you abolish platform 1-4 for HS rail then only 5 platforms exist for inter-city classic compatible trains. It wouldn't be a problem, but then you consider that the shorter tran-Pennine commuter trains would have to cut across their paths to get to the smaller platforms 10-12, or terminate in front of the Pendolinos which opens up risks to delays. The logistics are not as ideal when you consider trains also terminate from the east terminate into Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

- Manchester Piccadilly now has a lot of a spare capacity on the bay platforms - but I would be keen to stress this is only a recent phenomenon and there is no guarantee these four platforms wouldn't be needed again in 10, 20, 30 years etc. particularly if trains have more carriages and take up more of the platform. Prior to 2014, you had services from Cleethorpes/Middlesborough/Newcastle terminating/going to Airport via Piccadilly - now a few go via Victoria. Then the half-hourly services from Crewe to Manchester were extended to Liverpool so they could use platforms 13/14.

 

[Chester1]

Anything is possible but the train shed (possibly listed??) is supported on platform 12, so to reconfigure 11 and 12 would be very expensive.

Offset the cost of rail projects through Manchester by converting existing platforms? It sounds nice in principle although I would have a few observations:

- A purpose-built HS2 station would be preferable as the new dedicated HS line which also has to be tunnelled from just outside Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. Sharing it with existing lines and at high level (which Piccadilly and its approach is located) would complicate that.

- I believe platforms 10-12 cannot accommodate the 9/11 coach Pendolinos. If you abolish platform 1-4 for HS rail then only 5 platforms exist for inter-city classic compatible trains. It wouldn't be a problem, but then you consider that the shorter tran-Pennine commuter trains would have to cut across their paths to get to the smaller platforms 10-12, or terminate in front of the Pendolinos which opens up risks to delays. The logistics are not as ideal when you consider trains also terminate from the east terminate into Piccadilly platforms 1-4.

- Manchester Piccadilly now has a lot of a spare capacity on the bay platforms - but I would be keen to stress this is only a recent phenomenon and there is no guarantee these four platforms wouldn't be needed again in 10, 20, 30 years etc. particularly if trains have more carriages and take up more of the platform. Prior to 2014, you had services from Cleethorpes/Middlesborough/Newcastle terminating/going to Airport via Piccadilly - now a few go via Victoria. Then the half-hourly services from Crewe to Manchester were extended to Liverpool so they could use platforms 13/14.

Currently 22tph use 1-12 with 12tph using 13 and 14 of which 10tph run through and 2tph reverse. If 6tph switched from the shed to 13-16 then there would be 16tph using 4-12, I would suggest that Leeds/Hull TPE services be diverted into 1-2 of Victoria reducing it to 14tph which should be managable. Most Northern services to / from Stockport and Airport would switch to 13-16. 5-7 could be used to stack the 6tph of Glossop/New Mills/Marple, 8-9 are long enough for VT and 10-12 would be enough for the 5tph left +TPE (Cleethorpes), CrossCountry, Arriva (South Wales) and 2tph of Northern.

Platforms 15 and 16 would basically reduce demand for 1-12 because of Slade Lane having a limit of 22tph. While that would be useful for train lengthening in the medium term, in 2033 it will be excessive. Maybe a couple more services will run from Glossop or Marple / New Mills. As things stand 15-16 add flexibility and resilience but don't really add extra capacity unless Stockport services are diverted away from Slade Lane. I know its not a popular thing to say on here but 15 and 16 are not necessarily a good way to spend £200m.

 

[Altfish]

Currently 22tph use 1-12 with 12tph using 13 and 14 of which 10tph run through and 2tph reverse. If 6tph switched from the shed to 13-16 then there would be 16tph using 4-12, I would suggest that Leeds/Hull TPE services be diverted into 1-2 of Victoria reducing it to 14tph which should be managable. Most Northern services to / from Stockport and Airport would switch to 13-16. 5-7 could be used to stack the 6tph of Glossop/New Mills/Marple, 8-9 are long enough for VT and 10-12 would be enough for the 5tph left +TPE (Cleethorpes), CrossCountry, Arriva (South Wales) and 2tph of Northern.

Platforms 15 and 16 would basically reduce demand for 1-12 because of Slade Lane having a limit of 22tph. While that would be useful for train lengthening in the medium term, in 2033 it will be excessive. Maybe a couple more services will run from Glossop or Marple / New Mills. As things stand 15-16 add flexibility and resilience but don't really add extra capacity unless Stockport services are diverted away from Slade Lane. I know its not a popular thing to say on here but 15 and 16 are not necessarily a good way to spend £200m.

Moving terminating trains into 13-16 means they will run through, I assume, where to?
Platform 12 is short a double Pacer fills it.

A better option for reducing use of the terminating platforms might be converting (say) Marple / Rose Hill / Glossop to Tram or Tram-Train and divert them to the streets.

 

[Chester1]

Moving terminating trains into 13-16 means they will run through, I assume, where to?
Platform 12 is short a double Pacer fills it.

A better option for reducing use of the terminating platforms might be converting (say) Marple / Rose Hill / Glossop to Tram or Tram-Train and divert them to the streets.

If your in favour of building platforms 15 and 16 which extra services should use them? The only solution I can think of is linking 4tph of Airport/Stockport services with 2tph CLC stoppers + 2tph of extra services through Castlefield. 2tph already approach 13 use the siding and then use 14. I would agree with the latter idea if the Valleys conversion is a success.

Edit - I think platform 12 can just fit a 3x23m unit so would be OK for ATW service to South Wales.

 

[WatcherZero]

In his interview on Breakfast this morning Grayling appeared to suggest the TWAO was still being considered but Manchester City Council was objecting - one reason he will not make decision.

The Only thing MCC were objecting to was NR proposal to close the entire road (one of the main thoroughfares in the city) for the duration of the works to use as a goods yard for construction.

 

[Altfish]

If your in favour of building platforms 15 and 16 which extra services should use them? The only solution I can think of is linking 4tph of Airport/Stockport services with 2tph CLC stoppers + 2tph of extra services through Castlefield. 2tph already approach 13 use the siding and then use 14. I would agree with the latter idea if the Valleys conversion is a success.

Edit - I think platform 12 can just fit a 3x23m unit so would be OK for ATW service to South Wales.

I'm not sure any extra services should use 15/16. The idea is to relieve the chaos that currently exists, give some flexibility and a chance for the freight / stopper / express mix that passes through to do so unimpeded
One problem with 12 is that if there is anything longer that a 3 car unit in 11, the train from 12 cannot get out.

 

[Greybeard33]

In his interview on Breakfast this morning Grayling appeared to suggest the TWAO was still being considered but Manchester City Council was objecting - one reason he will not make decision.

The Only thing MCC were objecting to was NR proposal to close the entire road (one of the main thoroughfares in the city) for the duration of the works to use as a goods yard for construction.

The Grayling interview on BBC Breakfast can be viewed from 1:40 on iPlayer. He stated that Manchester City Council "opposes" approval of the TWAO, which would appear to deliberately misrepresent the council's views. He also floated the "digital railway" red herring again.

MCC worked closely with Network Rail during development of the TWAO proposals and was strongly supportive in principle. The council issued its Piccadilly Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF) earlier this year, which shows P15/P16 on the plans. It also updated the Mayfield SRF, which likewise allows for the new platforms.

 

[Greybeard33]

If your in favour of building platforms 15 and 16 which extra services should use them? The only solution I can think of is linking 4tph of Airport/Stockport services with 2tph CLC stoppers + 2tph of extra services through Castlefield. 2tph already approach 13 use the siding and then use 14.

The Northern Blackpool service that currently reverses is planned to extend to Macclesfield once electric trains can be used. The Northern franchise agreement requires one of the Leeds/Bradford via Calder Valley services, which currently terminates at Victoria, to be extended to the Airport via the Chord once P15/16 are available. There is also an option for a 4th Chord service, from Blackburn to the Airport via the Todmorden Curve. Together with a second hourly freight path, these two extra Airport services would use up all the available capacity through Castlefield Junction.

The franchise agreement also requires two additional services into Piccadilly via Stockport, from Greenbank and Hazel Grove, which have not started yet. So, even if the CLC stoppers are linked to two Stockport line services, there will be the same number of services as now terminating in the main shed.

The franchise agreement also requires longer trains on Northern's Hope Valley/New Mills Central/Rose Hill Marple services, which will reduce scope for multiple occupancy of P1-3. It will surely not be feasible to reduce the number of terminal platforms.