Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[js1000]

From the outside looking in, either Grayling or Manchester City Council are lying.

I guess we have come to expect such lowly, blame game behaviour from our politicians to effectively cover their backsides.

 

[AndrewE]

From the outside looking in, either Grayling or Manchester City Council are lying.
I guess we have come to expect such lowly, blame game behaviour from our politicians to effectively cover their backsides.

There is one explicit statement

“Indeed the interesting challenge is that the proposal to expand the route between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Oxford Road, which is going through a Transport and Works Act Order process at the moment, is being opposed by Manchester council."

and a perfectly believable refutation, in the form of a detailed explanation of how the council is awaiting the improvement but a totally different scheme needs altering -but only in its details. I know who I think is lying.

 

[LM93]

Funnily enough, I heard MCC were willing to fund it for NR upfront, with NR paying back to the council in CP6.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Funnily enough, I heard MCC were willing to fund it for NR upfront, with NR paying back to the council in CP6.

Hmmm... I wonder why the DfT would reject that?

 

[HowardGWR]

While we are being fair to Mr Grayling, I wonder if he is playing with words here. If there is a Public Inquiry to a scheme, and you submit a paper which says you support the scheme fully, except that you would e.g. 'like to see the entrance widened' or some such comment, you will be classed as an Objector. It would not surprise me if that was not the case here, although I have not seen MCC's submissions.

 

[Mollman]

The most interesting bit I found was that even though he 'doesn't do railways' he still said "we are introducing" before waffling about new and like new trains. Clearly he hasn't been on a refurbished Northern unit. Given that comment I wouldn't be surprised if MCC had objected to something minor but was being used as an excuse by the DfT.

 

[MarkyT]

While we are being fair to Mr Grayling, I wonder if he is playing with words here. If there is a Public Inquiry to a scheme, and you submit a paper which says you support the scheme fully, except that you would e.g. 'like to see the entrance widened' or some such comment, you will be classed as an Objector. It would not surprise me if that was not the case here, although I have not seen MCC's submissions.

And the scheme does have a lot of 'street impact', the detailed design of which is a very legitimate concern of those responsible for the urban thoroughfares alongside and below the viaducts. Public entrances and other interfaces, construction disruption etc.

 

[Greybeard33]

The most interesting bit I found was that even though he 'doesn't do railways' he still said "we are introducing" before waffling about new and like new trains. Clearly he hasn't been on a refurbished Northern unit. Given that comment I wouldn't be surprised if MCC had objected to something minor but was being used as an excuse by the DfT.

This was discussed on this very thread two days ago, when the Grayling interview was broadcast - see Post #1049 and preceding posts. WatcherZero posted:

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 Manchester Evening News has been rather slow to pick up this story. I wonder if the journalist reads RailUK?

 

[Altfish]

And the scheme does have a lot of 'street impact', the detailed design of which is a very legitimate concern of those responsible for the urban thoroughfares alongside and below the viaducts. Public entrances and other interfaces, construction disruption etc.

Apart from the Star & Garter pub (Is it still open?) whatever you do improves the area. Fairfield St and Travis St are easily blocked up or diverted; you then have the remnants of the old Mayfield St train shed. The rest is open car parking.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4759027,-2.2260941,232m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[HowardGWR]

Ah, so he was 'playing with words' about MCC 'objecting'. An execrable character clearly.

 

[furnessvale]

Ah, so he was 'playing with words' about MCC 'objecting'. An execrable character clearly.

A previous Minister of Transport instructed BR not to submit investment applications so that he could stand up in Parliament and truthfully say "I have no investment applications from BR on my desk".

They are all at it, and they always will be at it.

 

[Cletus]

Apart from the Star & Garter pub (Is it still open?) whatever you do improves the area. Fairfield St and Travis St are easily blocked up or diverted; you then have the remnants of the old Mayfield St train shed. The rest is open car parking.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4759027,-2.2260941,232m/data=!3m1!1e3

Star & Garter is still open. Last time I was at Piccadilly on a Saturday evening, spent an hour on platform 14 listening to an Iron Maiden tribute band

 

[MarkyT]

Star & Garter is still open. Last time I was at Piccadilly on a Saturday evening, spent an hour on platform 14 listening to an Iron Maiden tribute band

Classy! The 15/16 works themselves don't appear to require removal of the Star & Garter, as at that point the new alignment is still the other side of and possibly slightly overhanging Fairfield Street. Whether there are road diversions or other unrelated developments that force its closure I do not know.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Classy! The 15/16 works themselves don't appear to require removal of the Star & Garter, as at that point the new alignment is still the other side of and possibly slightly overhanging Fairfield Street. Whether there are road diversions or other unrelated developments that force its closure I do not know.

It was very frustrating at a courteeners gig to hear Liam Fray complaining about the closure of the pub and encouraging everyone in the audience to oppose HS2 for destroying manchesters heritage in the pub. My younger brother got on his high horse before I pointed out it was nothing to do with HS2.... #FakeNews as trump would say.

 

[sprunt]

The M.E.N. asked the Department for Transport exactly which element of expansion Mr Grayling was referring when he accused the council of opposing the order, but they declined to comment.

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? If he wasn't making it up as he goes along, they'd be able to quickly answer this, and would have no reason to decline to comment.

 

[fowler9]

Why does Manchester Airport need trains from the whole of Northern England when Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world manages without? Build 15 and 16 and run a shuttle to the airport from there.

 

[cle]

Why does Manchester Airport need trains from the whole of Northern England when Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world manages without? Build 15 and 16 and run a shuttle to the airport from there.

Because we can do better?! Heathrow is not the baseline for rail service to an airport, it’s currently sub-par.

We should aspire to Schiphol or Zurich, never mind the whataboutery.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Because we can do better?! Heathrow is not the baseline for rail service to an airport, it’s currently sub-par.

We should aspire to Schiphol or Zurich, never mind the whataboutery.

EXACTLY

 

[Class 170101]

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.

I would doubt the signalling overlap would be sufficient and you would need to extend the existing platforms to create the overlaps as you would be creating a Cambridge style station layout (platforms 1 and 4) in both directions.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Because we can do better?! Heathrow is not the baseline for rail service to an airport, it’s currently sub-par.

We should aspire to Schiphol or Zurich, never mind the whataboutery.

Exactly! Although of course if it was cited North of Manchester it would be easier.... I always think of Dusseldorf Airport Station (the main line one) where it is just an intermediate stop between Dusseldorf and other major towns and cities to the North.

 

[AndrewE]

Exactly! Although of course if it was cited North of Manchester it would be easier.... I always think of Dusseldorf Airport Station (the main line one) where it is just an intermediate stop between Dusseldorf and other major towns and cities to the North.

or Birmingham International?

 

[Bletchleyite]

or Birmingham International?

That's made a lot easier by putting the airport next to the WCML, which of course was there first. There's no significant additional overhead of serving it, nor is there the "Platform 15/16" issue because it has enough platforms! (The section could do with 4-tracking, but HS2 will solve that a different way).

 

[MarkyT]

I would doubt the signalling overlap would be sufficient and you would need to extend the existing platforms to create the overlaps as you would be creating a Cambridge style station layout (platforms 1 and 4) in both directions.

With such an arrangement there doesn't need to be a full overlap distance between the trains as the overlap for a rear train approaching the mid platform signal can be set over the scissors crossover switched to the bypass line. Once the rear train has come to a stand the overlap times off and locking of the points is removed to allow a following train to overtake and enter the forward section.

 

[MarkyT]

No one mentioned Gatwick, also very well served by rail directly from much of the south east including Thameslink from north of the capital. Southampton is another UK example.

 

[Ianno87]

I would doubt the signalling overlap would be sufficient and you would need to extend the existing platforms to create the overlaps as you would be creating a Cambridge style station layout (platforms 1 and 4) in both directions.

Cambridge is indeed restrictive in how its overlaps fall; restricted overlaps (with speed control on approach) permit a train to arrive 1 from the south with a train in platform 4, and vice-versa, although a full overlap can be created by swinging the scissors crossover...provided nothing is simultaneously signalled on the Through Line.

Down side at Piccadilly would be the passenger tidal waves between trains stopping at one end and stopping at the other.

 

[MarkyT]

Cambridge is indeed restrictive in how its overlaps fall; restricted overlaps (with speed control on approach) permit a train to arrive 1 from the south with a train in platform 4, and vice-versa, although a full overlap can be created by swinging the scissors crossover...provided nothing is simultaneously signalled on the through Line.

With side tracks and scissors at Manchester, each platform would still be unidirectional though, unlike Cambridge, so some other movement traversing the bypass track at the same time would be implausible. By the time a following freight had caught up, the overlap for the rear train would have timed out. Hence a full overlap back out onto the bypass line should normally always be available. There could be exceptions in the case of equipment failure, engineering work or a track machine or similar temporarily parked there.

 

[fowler9]

Because we can do better?! Heathrow is not the baseline for rail service to an airport, it’s currently sub-par.

We should aspire to Schiphol or Zurich, never mind the whataboutery.

Because we can do better?! Heathrow is not the baseline for rail service to an airport, it’s currently sub-par.

We should aspire to Schiphol or Zurich, never mind the whataboutery.

yeah mate, fair point.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A previous Minister of Transport instructed BR not to submit investment applications so that he could stand up in Parliament and truthfully say "I have no investment applications from BR on my desk".

That's more of a white lie. But either way that's scummy.

 

[cle]

yeah mate, fair point.

No worries, even Gatwick is a better benchmark! Horrible as an airport, but the station is right there and hugely frequent - not just to London (various stations) but across the South (Coast) and also many key places north of the river too. Assuming Thameslink isn’t in the toilet! It’s poor to Kent though.

That said, it is on the mainline itself, rather than a spur.

I strongly support Man Airport having services from across the NW. A shuttle wouldn’t even cover Victoria or Oxford Road, and I imagine demand for airport services is very well distributed. It’s the only major airport in the region, especially for long haul, so it needs to serve wider than just Greater Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No worries, even Gatwick is a better benchmark! Horrible as an airport, but the station is right there and hugely frequent - not just to London (various stations) but across the South (Coast) and also many key places north of the river too. Assuming Thameslink isn’t in the toilet! It’s poor to Kent though.

That said, it is on the mainline itself, rather than a spur.

This, precisely this. If you build an airport next to an existing mainline, of course it's going to get a good incidental service. So in that sense Manchester Airport is in the wrong place.