Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[lord rathmore]

That's right — as an experimental section for the then-new (to Britain) 25 kV system, and also for driver-training with the converted gas-turbine loco E1000 (Metro-Vick conversion).

Interesting to note that the Styal Line WAS part of the WCML from when it opened until sometime in LMS days. It was a Stockport bypass and LNWR expresses not stopping at Stockport all went via Styal.

 

[Altfish]

Thought I'd repost this image:
View attachment 51499
Whether or not the grade separation was built this idea would use a floor or two of the new skyscraper next to the railway as a new Oxford Road western entrance and a new pedestrian bridge could be thrown across the road to the east end of the Metrolink stop for interchange. Deansgate existing station entrance would be abandoned and the heritage listed building repurposed. The pedestrian walkway above the tracks would join directly onto the new footbridge planned at Oxford Road.

Unfortunately there is a new office block being built on your alignment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Since this thread concerns the problems of the proposed through Platforms 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly and the effects upon nearby city centre railway stations, I think that bringing Milton Keynes Central station to use as a comparative is somewhat far removed from the reality of the situation.

It wasn't me that did so!

 

[lord rathmore]

Regardless of political blame-games, puffing-out of chests and all that crap, this scheme is needed urgently. Platforms 13/14 are ludicrously overcrowded, and the little viaduct to Oxford Road ain't going to last forever.

 

[geoffk]

Far more than the description of "tiny" that you used in your posting. If your investments made a 33% return, would you decry this as a "tiny" return?

There has been a reduction in the number of trains calling at Deansgate. Only three an hour to Piccadilly, plus two to Oxford Road only. Westbound, two Liverpools, a Preston and a Blackpool.

 

[Altfish]

Interesting to note that the Styal Line WAS part of the WCML from when it opened until sometime in LMS days. It was a Stockport bypass and LNWR expresses not stopping at Stockport all went via Styal.

I think the increase in traffic due to the Airport spur put at end to that.
There used to be an early morning Cross Country Service that went that way - it did until about 12-months ago

 

[Bletchleyite]

There has been a reduction in the number of trains calling at Deansgate. Only three an hour to Piccadilly, plus two to Oxford Road only. Westbound, two Liverpools, a Preston and a Blackpool.

The Southports used to call, but are those all at Vic by now?

 

[Eccles1983]

The Southports used to call, but are those all at Vic by now?

Wigan northwestern - alderley edge still call at deansgate.

 

[LOL The Irony]

It is unbelievably slow. Its faster and more reliable to walk. It would be better to have Liverpool CLC services stop at Cornbrook and Liverpool and Wigan NW services at a Eccles Metrolink/Rail interchange and just stop services from Salford Crescent direction at Deansgate which would help the timetable reliability.

Closing Deansgate only requires bigger buses on Metroshuttle 2. Closing Deansgate and building a new station at Cornbrook requires temporary closure of the most important Metrolink station, re-routing trains to Liverpool along 1 line and untold disruption to passengers. The only way of lessening the disruption is to do it at the same time as platform 15 & 16.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would you need to close the Metrolink station? It's far away enough that building a pair of side platforms on the mainline wouldn't affect it.

 

[Chester1]

Closing Deansgate only requires bigger buses on Metroshuttle 2. Closing Deansgate and building a new station at Cornbrook requires temporary closure of the most important Metrolink station, re-routing trains to Liverpool along 1 line and untold disruption to passengers. The only way of lessening the disruption is to do it at the same time as platform 15 & 16.

Have you actually used the Metroshuttles? Only people of reduced mobility would use them to get between Oxford Road and Metrolink. They are litterally slower than walking. A Cornbrook Interchange would cut journey times to Salford Quays in addition to partially replacing Deansgate, in addition to a (400-500 metre) Metrolink extension in Eccles . I can't see why Cornbrook Tram stop would need to be closed for more than a very brief time, temporarily adding 5 minutes to peoples journeys rather than probably 10 minutes to other peoples journeys permanently. It would require some weekend closures of the CLC but again it would on average cut journey times once built.

 

[Altfish]

Why would you need to close the Metrolink station? It's far away enough that building a pair of side platforms on the mainline wouldn't affect it.

The two lines are very close and at different heights; I don't think you could get a Manchester bound platform in adjacent to the Metrolink Station.
See Google Map below...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4698722,-2.2680819,110m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
..with one of those Trafford Park bound freights trundling through...although it seems to be loco less

 

[Chester1]

The two lines are very close and at different heights; I don't think you could get a Manchester bound platform in adjacent to the Metrolink Station.
See Google Map below...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4698722,-2.2680819,110m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
..with one of those Trafford Park bound freights trundling through...although it seems to be loco less

There is enough space to move the CLC a couple of metres further away. The island platform at Cornbrook means an underpass or bridge would be needed anyway.

 

[Altfish]

There is enough space to move the CLC a couple of metres further away. The island platform at Cornbrook means an underpass or bridge would be needed anyway.

It'll need much more than a couple of meters to swing the heavy rail line away and add even an island platform, then add in the proximity of the A56. It will cost as much as to build platforms 15/16 with much less benefit

 

[notlob.divad]

There is plenty of Room at Cornbrook. The platforms wouldn't have to perrfectly align with the existing metrolink platforms. They could be offset to the North East. Two tiny bridges over the entrance to the Trentham Street Scrap yard could give you platform length all the way to the Bridgewater canal. Then use one of the disused railway arches as your underpass.

Out side of the railway environment, you could build it for peanuts. Even adding in the railway tax, I reckon it would be a fraction the cost of Maghull North. I do not think this is the solution to platform 15/16 at Piccadilly, but it is a great solution for shutting Deansgate Heavy Rail, and allowing a decent improvement Castlefield junction to be complete without loosing *'precious' Heavy Rail - Metrolink connectivity.

* I say 'precious' because no-one ever seems to consider inter-modal connectivity as sacricant in other geographical locations within the UK.

 

[notlob.divad]

I think the increase in traffic due to the Airport spur put at end to that.
There used to be an early morning Cross Country Service that went that way - it did until about 12-months ago

So we already had trains from Birmingham and the West Midlands (the Second largest urban area in the country) going through the junctions to the Airport station, but because the airport station was built in the wrong place, there was no where for them to stop. So instead we have built a roundabout in the middle of Manchester to allow a different catchment of people direct access to the airport, destroying the reliablity of services across the North. You really couldn't make up this level of stupidity when it comes to decision making in the UK. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us whe we are not listening.

 

[Chester1]

There is plenty of Room at Cornbrook. The platforms wouldn't have to perfectly align with the existing metrolink platforms. They could be offset to the North East. Two tiny bridges over the entrance to the Trentham Street Scrap yard could give you platform length all the way to the Bridgewater canal. Then use one of the disused railway arches as your underpass.

Out side of the railway environment, you could build it for peanuts. Even adding in the railway tax, I reckon it would be a fraction the cost of Maghull North. I do not think this is the solution to platform 15/16 at Piccadilly, but it is a great solution for shutting Deansgate Heavy Rail, and allowing a decent improvement Castlefield junction to be complete without loosing *'precious' Heavy Rail - Metrolink connectivity.

* I say 'precious' because no-one ever seems to consider inter-modal connectivity as sacricant in other geographical locations within the UK.

Thats a good point in regards to heavy rail platforms at Cornbrook. Intermodal connections should be important across the UK. As much as it anoys people from other parts of the north, Greater Manchester CA has significant political influence and would veto any closure of Deansgate that did not benefit some passengers and compensate those losing out. They keep all Metrolink ticket revanue and Salford Quays is a very important part of the Greater Manchester economy.

 

[Altfish]

There is plenty of Room at Cornbrook. The platforms wouldn't have to perrfectly align with the existing metrolink platforms. They could be offset to the North East. Two tiny bridges over the entrance to the Trentham Street Scrap yard could give you platform length all the way to the Bridgewater canal. Then use one of the disused railway arches as your underpass.

Out side of the railway environment, you could build it for peanuts. Even adding in the railway tax, I reckon it would be a fraction the cost of Maghull North. I do not think this is the solution to platform 15/16 at Piccadilly, but it is a great solution for shutting Deansgate Heavy Rail, and allowing a decent improvement Castlefield junction to be complete without loosing *'precious' Heavy Rail - Metrolink connectivity.

* I say 'precious' because no-one ever seems to consider inter-modal connectivity as sacricant in other geographical locations within the UK.

The problem isn't Metrolink, it's where does the heavy rail station go.

 

[Altfish]

So we already had trains from Birmingham and the West Midlands (the Second largest urban area in the country) going through the junctions to the Airport station, but because the airport station was built in the wrong place, there was no where for them to stop. So instead we have built a roundabout in the middle of Manchester to allow a different catchment of people direct access to the airport, destroying the reliablity of services across the North. You really couldn't make up this level of stupidity when it comes to decision making in the UK. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us whe we are not listening.

No, there was one train at about 0530 that went that way. I don't think (I'm sure I'll be corrected) there are any Birmingham trains on the Styal line.
The Airport Station was built at The Airport, not sure how that is in the wrong place.
We are back to the need for platforms 1/16 and Oxford Road redesign.

 

[Chester1]

No, there was one train at about 0530 that went that way. I don't think (I'm sure I'll be corrected) there are any Birmingham trains on the Styal line.
The Airport Station was built at The Airport, not sure how that is in the wrong place.
We are back to the need for platforms 1/16 and Oxford Road redesign.

To be more specific the station is next to terminals 1 and 3 which are much smaller than terminal 2, requiring most people to walk the distance. Combined with the lack of WCML capacity and the restricted capacity of the airport station it is reasonable to argue a parkway station and people mover / light rail system connecting the railway with all 3 terminals might have been a better idea, although more expensive.

 

[Altfish]

To be more specific the station is next to terminals 1 and 3 which are much smaller than terminal 2, requiring most people to walk the distance. Combined with the lack of WCML capacity and the restricted capacity of the airport station it is reasonable to argue a parkway station and people mover / light rail system connecting the railway with all 3 terminals might have been a better idea, although more expensive.

I think you'll find that it is about equidistant from T1 & T2 and slightly further away from T3. In other words it is central.
With the redevelopment, T2 is greatly increased in size and moves towards the M56, there are plans to extend the trams with it, but yes the train station will remain where it is, I expect travellators to be extended.
T1 closes and T3 expanded into where T1 was.
When (if) HS2 arrives T2 will be the nearest terminal to the station and with the expected tram extension to the HS2 station plus possible pods or similar the new station will be well placed, the existing station giving a well placed alternative.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Why not just close Deansgate? Lock the doors and stop trains calling? It is that crucial? That is a serious question, not just me being, well, me.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why not just close Deansgate? Lock the doors and stop trains calling? It is that crucial? That is a serious question, not just me being, well, me.

If that were to happen, with all Deansgate station doors locked, would you keep the connecting bridge over from Deansgate-Metrolink station also securely locked to prevent access from the tram stop and eventually cause the said bridge to be demolished?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Why not just close Deansgate? Lock the doors and stop trains calling? It is that crucial? That is a serious question, not just me being, well, me.

You would lose a good interchange between the two systems, but it isn't well served on the NR side and if you implemented the other part of 15/16, at Oxford Road, the two stations would be less than 200m apart - close Deansgate and link the Metrolink stop to Oxford Road's new western footbridge instead...

 

[Chester1]

Why not just close Deansgate? Lock the doors and stop trains calling? It is that crucial? That is a serious question, not just me being, well, me.

Its the main interchange with Metrolink for people travelling from the west and north. The alternate is walking from Oxford Road to St Peters Square, the absurdly slow Metroshuttle or using Piccadilly. If the final destination is Salford Quays or Sale or Chorlton then any of those alternatives significantly increase journey time. The two suggestions I made would compensate most passengers and mean people not having to travel into the city centre and go back out but they would not help people traveling on services apart from CLC and Chat Moss. Simply shutting Deansgate is a political non starter.

 

[Chester1]

You would lose a good interchange between the two systems, but it isn't well served on the NR side and if you implemented the other part of 15/16, at Oxford Road, the two stations would be less than 200m apart - close Deansgate and link the Metrolink stop to Oxford Road's new western footbridge instead...

What route would such a link take? New and planned developments make any walk way tricky to fit in. The alternative of negotiating 2 sets of stairs and 3 busy road crossings will inevitably reduce interchange appeal and will be seen as the Tories closing a railway station in a city centre without a meaningful replacement.

 

[LOL The Irony]

closing a railway station in a city centre without a meaningful replacement.

If you read above, after the upgrade, Oxford Road will be just 200 metres from Deansgate. 11 car Pendolino's are longer than that.

 

[WatcherZero]

The platform ends would be about 200m apart but the actual interchange would be far longer, both stations are on viaducts and between them is a row of buildings, a skyscraper, a canal and two crossroads.

 

[MarkyT]

If you read above, after the upgrade, Oxford Road will be just 200 metres from Deansgate. 11 car Pendolino's are longer than that.

The ends of the platforms may very well be extended westward closer than the approximate 400m distance between ramps today, but AFAIK there is no new entrance provided at that end of the station with the access via a new footbridge approximately in the same position as the existing one, which will be approximately half way along the new platform length. There are or were access steps from the east end of the Metrolink platforms down to road level at Deansgate and this will still be approximately 500m from Oxford Road's entrance. This is only a little less than the walk to St Peters Square. Only a dedicated covered walkways, perhaps with travelators, could make a Oxford Road - Deansgate transfer more attractive than the St Peters Square alternative. I believe an over track solution, high above the rail viaduct and tied into the new Oxford Road footbridge at the east end could work. With a much smaller design load it appears to me far more plausible than the various ideas I have seen here to double deck the entire route with an extra pair of tracks upstairs. A new west entrance would clearly require a major stair well and lifts to rise 15m or more from street level. I'm sure it could be squeezed in somehow between new developments, and should ideally incorporate a footbridge across the road to the Metrolink platforms at their eastern end.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The platform ends would be about 200m apart but the actual interchange would be far longer, both stations are on viaducts and between them is a row of buildings, a skyscraper, a canal and two crossroads.

Build a sky bridge.