Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[B&I]

It seems the forum is ignoring the extra demand that will come from Warrington West which under construction complete with a large car park that is more convenient than Warrington Central for those west of the A49. The area around the station is in the Travel to Work Area (according to ONS) for Manchester not Liverpool and the station is intended to serve the are at Omega Business Park which will be pretty huge. The idea of turn-back at Central for the Manchester services and ignoring Warrington in favour of Liverpool-Manchester direct is not realistic.

A major disadvantage of the current set-up of fast trains over Chat Moss is the need to use Lea Green and Newton-le-Willows as railheads for intermediate demand. Any new line which doesn't go through Warrington would be a waste. Same with HS2 services to Liverpool - it should serve Warrington on the way with full length trains at least twice hourly

 

[Greybeard33]

By destinations west of Manchester, I wasn't just thinking of Liverpool (though I think that when capacity permits 4 TPH fast Liverpool to Manchester would be justified, at peak times at least). I had Preston / Blackpool and Chester / North Wales in mind too.

You've hit the nail on the head re the conflicting demands on rail around Manchester, and the conflicting motives which confuse the picture. Until someone builds a high speed relief line, Manchester will have to make allowance for medium- and long-distance services and local rail, but its governing authorities have no interest in the former unless they go to the airport, and an apparent belief that all the later can be turned into trams regardless of speed or capacity issues.

What Greater Manchester really needs is some means of separating out longer distance trains, and a proper S bahn type system befitting a conurbation of c 3 million people (perhaps eventually with cross-city tunnels and re-conversion of the Altrincham, Bury and Oldham Metrolink lines to high capacity heavyish rail EMU operation, and new street-running lines to take over any redundant infrastructure). Sadly, the latter is already being fatally compromised by airportcentricity, and the latter doesn't even seem to be on TfGM's radar

Blackpool and Preston already have a direct transpennine service to Leeds via Hebden Bridge, bypassing Manchester. Why encourage more passengers to take the long loop south via Manchester, adding to crowding on the TPE services?

Should we not be trying to redistribute traffic to the lesser used transpennine lines, rather than funnelling everyone over Standedge?

 

[B&I]

Blackpool and Preston already have a direct transpennine service to Leeds via Hebden Bridge, bypassing Manchester. Why encourage more passengers to take the long loop south via Manchester, adding to crowding on the TPE services?

Should we not be trying to redistribute traffic to the lesser used transpennine lines, rather than funnelling everyone over Standedge?

True, we could simply have fewer services between Manchester and Leeds

 

[Chester1]

A major disadvantage of the current set-up of fast trains over Chat Moss is the need to use Lea Green and Newton-le-Willows as railheads for intermediate demand. Any new line which doesn't go through Warrington would be a waste. Same with HS2 services to Liverpool - it should serve Warrington on the way with full length trains at least twice hourly

I am surprised you didnt say 3tph because Liverpool must have the same as Manchester.... Alternatively Warrington could be served by Preston and Scotland services and Liverpool via Runcorn works now, just needs more capacity. What your suggesting would waste 2tph of capacity for Liverpool-Manchester services.

 

[B&I]

I am surprised you didnt say 3tph because Liverpool must have the same as Manchester.... Alternatively Warrington could be served by Preston and Scotland services and Liverpool via Runcorn works now, just needs more capacity. What your suggesting would waste 2tph of capacity for Liverpool-Manchester services.

Well your surprise says more about you than it does about me.

If there was a high speed line from Liverpool to the HS2 trunk via Warrington, with however many TPH possible on it, what would be the purpose of trundling through Runcorn at 3 mph, then crawling down to Crewe ?

 

[Confused52]

I am surprised you didnt say 3tph because Liverpool must have the same as Manchester.... Alternatively Warrington could be served by Preston and Scotland services and Liverpool via Runcorn works now, just needs more capacity. What your suggesting would waste 2tph of capacity for Liverpool-Manchester services.

The NPR would be used to HS2 east of Warrington and therefore be native HS2. Three 400m trains an hour may be a little excessive for some time. In practice one 400m native HS2 and one 200m classic compatible via Runcorn and Crewe joining with a 200m from Preston sounds more likely. .

However that is somewhat off-topic but the effect of 6 tph on NPR from Liverpool to York would not saturate HS2 to Manchester but would have a tremendous effect in separating the long-distance from local traffic. The problem is that that possibility is an awful long way off in time and given the plan for NPR any solution to 13/14 issues other than building two more platforms at 15/16 seem to be more difficult to achieve than just getting on with the plan.

 

[urbophile]

Whether they need to go to Lime St though is a different matter. A redone Central could be better. I know it's really getting the crayons out, but I'd like to see the tunnels under Liverpool widened to get more types of stock through.

All (all!) that needs to be done is to double the number of platforms at Central by excavating under the presently unused 'Central Village' site, and divert all stopping trains from CLC (obviously it needs to be electrified) and Chat Moss/Wigan through the Wapping tunnel. That should release plenty of capacity at Lime Street to improve long distance services.

 

[Greybeard33]

A more realistic (i.e. cheaper) version of that would be grade seperating Ordsall Lane to make Liverpool-Victoria-Leeds the east-western main line for the north. More 4 tracking would help with that too.

A suggested service pattern for Piccadilly 13 and 14 using only 319s, 769s, 195s, 196s and 331s. With a new order it could eventually be run only with ETCS 195/196s and 331s and at higher frequencies:

Airport-Liverpool via CLC (express)
Airport-Blackpool
Airport-Preston
Airport-Llandudno (196s)
Airport-Leeds via Calder Valley
Airport-Burnley
Airport-Stalybridge (when wired)
Crewe-Manchester Airport-Liverpool

(In addition Airport-Sheffield and Airport-Newcastle by reversing across Piccadilly station throat, providing 10tph Piccadilly-Airport).

Sheffield-Liverpool (Northen Connect via CLC)
Alderley Edge-Wigan (769s then 331s once wired)
Hazel Grove-Preston
Hazel Grove-Stalybridge via Ordsall Chord (once wired)

CLC stoppers continuing to terminate at Oxford Road. TPE Airport-Scotland services diverting to Victoria (using electrified siding between services). TPE switching Middlesborough and Hull services to Liverpool. Obviously there will be problems with this but you get the gist. 12tph at Piccadilly 13 and 14 but run entirely with units with doors at thirds would be a significant improvement on current situation, especially if ETCS was installed.

Why are you so opposed to the P15/16 project, which has a defined design and cost and only needs TWAO approval? Yet you advocate a costly flyover and new rolling stock instead.

Can you estimate how much an Ordsall Lane flyover would cost, and how long it would take to construct? How many weeks of blockades and disruption? And when eventually complete, what would be the benefit in terms of additional services? 7tph (plus freight) frequency is already planned over the eastern Chat Moss, through the existing flat junction. What are the other constraints on an increase?

You propose that the Airport - Newcastle should reverse at Piccadilly again. How would you recreate the necessary paths across the throat? Those previously used were lost in the May timetable recast.

You propose that the Scotland to Airport services should be diverted to Victoria. Are you sure that there is capacity to reverse another service from the west at Victoria, in addition to the planned terminators from Preston and Wigan Wallgate? There is only one reversing siding.

 

[Chester1]

The NPR would be used to HS2 east of Warrington and therefore be native HS2. Three 400m trains an hour may be a little excessive for some time. In practice one 400m native HS2 and one 200m classic compatible via Runcorn and Crewe joining with a 200m from Preston sounds more likely. .

However that is somewhat off-topic but the effect of 6 tph on NPR from Liverpool to York would not saturate HS2 to Manchester but would have a tremendous effect in separating the long-distance from local traffic. The problem is that that possibility is an awful long way off in time and given the plan for NPR any solution to 13/14 issues other than building two more platforms at 15/16 seem to be more difficult to achieve than just getting on with the plan.

Thameslinking the Castlefield corridor could be better value for money though. About a mile and a half of ETCS and installing cab equipment. It would require a follow on order of 195s and 331s (and / or lengthening the ones already ordered). It would be more expensive than 15 and 16 but would be a long term solution rather than a short term fix.

Why are you so opposed to the P15/16 project, which has a defined design and cost and only needs TWAO approval? Yet you advocate a costly flyover and new rolling stock instead.

Can you estimate how much an Ordsall Lane flyover would cost, and how long it would take to construct? How many weeks of blockades and disruption? And when eventually complete, what would be the benefit in terms of additional services? 7tph (plus freight) frequency is already planned over the eastern Chat Moss, through the existing flat junction. What are the other constraints on an increase?

You propose that the Airport - Newcastle should reverse at Piccadilly again. How would you recreate the necessary paths across the throat? Those previously used were lost in the May timetable recast.

You propose that the Scotland to Airport services should be diverted to Victoria. Are you sure that there is capacity to reverse another service from the west at Victoria, in addition to the planned terminators from Preston and Wigan Wallgate? There is only one reversing siding.

I am not opposed to 15 and 16 but after the Ordsall Chord and May timetable I am skeptical it will do what it is meant to. I suspect we will end up with slightly more reliable services and 16tph rather than 12tph + Oxford Road terminators. That would be better than now but not an acceptable long term outcome. At some point there needs to be a coherent strategy for the Castlefield Corridor not a series of short term fixes. The aim of turning it into a Thameslink for Manchester could work very well if it is the policy goal for a sustained period of time. Ideally a tunnel scheme would be best, but I think it will be much easier to get funding for ETCS and more 195s and 331s.

I thought all the extra paths for Piccadilly 1-12 had not been used yet? Removing the conflicting moves was supposed to increase capacity by 3tph. Did the new timetable increase services into Piccadilly 1-12 by that much? I don't mean that Newcastle services would use the same timings as before May, North TP needs another huge recast.

In terms of Victoria, how about extending the Wallgate service to Rochdale or Stalybridge?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you propose to squeeze an additional 2tph from the CLC through Piccadilly 13/14? The CLC stoppers currently terminate at Oxford Road.

You could terminate half of them at Oxford Road as another option.

And where would Northern get the additional 150s to run under the wires to the Airport and replace the EMT 158s on the CLC?

Released by Class 195 deployment, or transferred in from other TOCs as other stock becomes available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preferably I'd keep it as it is, I know how essential it is and how many people use it across various legs. Unfortunately it always seems to take second fiddle and because the sun shines out of TPEs backside it'll end up getting split so that they can have all the golden eggs in one basket. If you were to keep a through Anglia to the North West route it would be Manchester to Norwich, Liverpool is a nice to have but causes a serious amount of delays to the whole route because everything else always seems to take precedent over the CLC route at Castlefield Junction, and the stopper is always late.

The best way to fix CLC delays would be to electrify and use Class 323s for the acceleration (but not change the running times, or not change them much). But P15/16 would be loads cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not a nice to have, it's an essential requirement. Warrington isn't exactly small either and sorely underutilised with very poor parking there amd lack of platform capacity. Needs dynamic loops on the CLC. Whether they need to go to Lime St though is a different matter. A redone Central could be better. I know it's really getting the crayons out, but I'd like to see the tunnels under Liverpool widened to get more types of stock through. Again, it shouldn't be limited to just a metro network. London gets its connections and it should be no different for our other major cities.

Why? Merseyrail is a popular, punctual and reliable S-Bahn type network. The people of Merseyside like it the way it is; they don't want it stuffing up with Class 319s from wherever.

There is scope for small extensions, such as to Warrington Central, Preston, Wigan/Skem and the likes, but not for a paradigm shift in its operation to become an unreliable mess like the Castlefield line.

And more to the point you'd need to do more than widen the tunnels - cram in more passengers and you'll need to open out and rebuild Central to 2 or even 3 islands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Vic needed more capacity, you could dig the arena up and build it, to be honest. There is plenty of space there that is basically just what is now quite an old arena taking it up.

 

[Greybeard33]

I thought all the extra paths for Piccadilly 1-12 had not been used yet? Removing the conflicting moves was supposed to increase capacity by 3tph. Did the new timetable increase services into Piccadilly 1-12 by that much? I don't mean that Newcastle services would use the same timings as before May, North TP needs another huge recast.

In terms of Victoria, how about extending the Wallgate service to Rochdale or Stalybridge?

The additional Piccadilly - Greenbank and Piccadilly - Hazel Grove services, which the Northern franchise agreement required from December 2017, have not yet started. But, at least for Greenbank, my understanding is that it is intended to introduce the service once DMUs are released by Bolton electrification. There would be a huge backlash from Mid-Cheshire line rail users if we were told we must make do with 1tph indefinitely.

I believe that Rochdale and Stalybridge are each able to terminate 2tph from the west. Rochdale already has the 2tph from Blackburn and Clitheroe via Bolton. Stalybridge has 1tph from Wigan North Western, plus the 1tph shuttle from Victoria. The timings of the shuttle (which has to fit between the 4tph TPE services) do not match those of either the Wallgate or Kirkby terminators (I forgot to mention the latter in my previous post - there are currently 3tph from the west terminating at Victoria, including the Buckshaw Parkway DMU that will be replaced by an EMU from Preston).

 

[Killingworth]

I've no problem with money being spent on Manchester. If long-distance services pass through it, money spent there will improve them. It needs a much better local railway network than it has. But money has to be spent in a lot if other places too if we are to have a functioning network (eg in your part of the world, on the Hope Valley, on the southern approaches to Sheffield station, and from there to Meadowhall)

Totally agree about other places, which is why I opened the Hope Valley Capacity thread. Sheffield relies on 2 lines in and out, be it to the north and east, or south and west. There could fairly easily be 4 to the south - apart from the Tesco superstore at Millhouses. It would require major civil engineering for a short section immediately outside the station to give more tracks to the north, but otherwise most of the route to Meadowhall would be fairly easy to make 4 track. This is, of course a digression from 15 and 16, however delays picked up here feedback to Manchester.

 

[snowball]

If and when the HS2 phase 2b bill (not yet before parliament) is passed or well on the way to being passed, attention will inevitably turn to the south and north approaches to Sheffield.

Indeed this may well happen before that, when the bill is at committee stage.

 

[Killingworth]

If and when the HS2 phase 2b bill (not yet before parliament) is passed or well on the way to being passed, attention will inevitably turn to the south and north approaches to Sheffield.

Indeed this may well happen before that, when the bill is at committee stage.

Again, HS2 is a digression, but site investigation work is supposed to be starting for electrification into Sheffield from the Clay Cross area. A sub-station is sketched in to go near Dore West Junction. They will need to consider track realignment if 4 tracks are to be restored.

 

[js1000]

Sometimes I think that Greater Manchester's transport planners are still suffering brain damage arising from the shock of central givernment kibboshing the Picc-Vic plan. It is the only way I can find to explain why they make so.many irrational decisions. Although the GM local authorities benefitting financially from increased airport traffic might have something to do with it as well

I have no doubt if TfGM had the choice, commuter services between Piccadilly and Manchester Airport wouldn't exist and it would be used exclusively for express trains to and from the airport. It would be a political decision forced on them by the Greater Manchester councils to maximise the catchment (and revenue) of the airport.

No doubt the operator of the Northern franchise would kick off about the loss of bread and butter commuter revenue - especially considering express trains to Manchester Airport (with exception of TPE Edinburgh service) are only really busy 3 months of the year.

 

[B&I]

I have no doubt if TfGM had the choice, commuter services between Piccadilly and Manchester Airport wouldn't exist and it would be used exclusively for express trains to and from the airport. It would be a political decision forced on them by the Greater Manchester councils to maximise the catchment (and revenue) of the airport.

No doubt the operator of the Northern franchise would kick off about the loss of bread and butter commuter revenue - especially considering express trains to Manchester Airport (with exception of TPE Edinburgh service) are only really busy 3 months of the year.

It would be nice if TfGM were as solicitous to the needs of actual GM residents as they are to the wants of Manchester Airport Group

 

[Bantamzen]

It would be nice if TfGM were as solicitous to the needs of actual GM residents as they are to the wants of Manchester Airport Group

Have the residents of GM really been that badly done by? Many have benefited from an extended tram network over the years, and although the timetables since May have been volatile generally speaking the area has good connectivity to it's core. Try heading over to somewhere like Leeds that has been crying out for greater public transport connectivity and tell them about poor old Greater Manchester!

As for the demands of the airport, well it does serve most if not all of the North of England, has grown by 40% in the last decade (according to their figures at least), and is currently at the beginning of a 7 year, billion pound expansion to programme to increase capacity by 50% (and of course make more employment opportunities for the good folk of GM, Cheshire etc). So yes, it's needs also need attention as it grows, otherwise GM's motorway network will quickly grind to halt, & GM commuter trains fill with nasty people with suitcases in the next few years by all those Jones' & ego-driven businesspeople you seem to believe are the airport's only customers!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If Vic needed more capacity, you could dig the arena up and build it, to be honest. There is plenty of space there that is basically just what is now quite an old arena taking it up.

Firstly, how much finance in your costing experience would have to be allowed for the total removal of the existing arena building, land purchase for a new replacement arena site as well situated close by the city centre with an adjacent railway station and the total cost of construction of a new arena of the same capacity.

Secondly, you describe the existing arena building as being quite an old building and ignoring the original 1844 buildings at Manchester Victoria railway station, but looking at the railway station buildings constructed later than those, are these also not old buildings, using your benchmark figures?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Firstly, how much finance in your costing experience would have to be allowed for the total removal of the existing arena building, land purchase for a new replacement arena site as well situated close by the city centre with an adjacent railway station and the total cost of construction of a new arena of the same capacity.

I'm sure a new arena could be developed commercially, perhaps at the Eastlands site (it has no need to be in the city centre per-se). The figure relevant would be the one necessary to fund compulsory purchase of the site.

Secondly, you describe the existing arena building as being quite an old building and ignoring the original 1844 buildings at Manchester Victoria railway station, but looking at the railway station buildings constructed later than those, are these also not old buildings, using your benchmark figures?

That isn't of relevance, as the only place where it'd be easy to expand Victoria is the Arena site directly to the north of the station.

 

[driver_m]

Why? Merseyrail is a popular, punctual and reliable S-Bahn type network. The people of Merseyside like it the way it is; they don't want it stuffing up with Class 319s from wherever.

There is scope for small extensions, such as to Warrington Central, Preston, Wigan/Skem and the likes, but not for a paradigm shift in its operation to become an unreliable mess like the Castlefield line.

And more to the point you'd need to do more than widen the tunnels - cram in more passengers and you'll need to open out and rebuild Central to 2 or even 3 islands.

Central needs doing anyway. Its borderline unsafe at the moment even after the 'improvements' it's going to have to be done at some point and if this desire to get the city line stuff in there ever happens, then it makes sense to do a proper job of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Central needs doing anyway. Its borderline unsafe at the moment even after the 'improvements' it's going to have to be done at some point and if this desire to get the city line stuff in there ever happens, then it makes sense to do a proper job of it.

That is true. As there's half of naff all on top of it, it would be nice to open it out and put up a "feature" overall roof. There's plenty of land in Liverpool for shopping centres.

 

[urbophile]

And more to the point you'd need to do more than widen the tunnels - cram in more passengers and you'll need to open out and rebuild [Liverpool] Central to 2 or even 3 islands.

That needs doing anyway. And now is the time, before developers get busy on the site on top of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That needs doing anyway. And now is the time, before developers get busy on the site on top of it.

True. I'd say 2 islands for the existing service, 3 if any more services are to be added.

 

[modernrail]

Good article in Rail Engineer. The punchline is basically that Grayling's delay tactic on platforms 15/16 is nonsense.

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/03/digital-delusion-a-lesson-from-not-so-long-ago/

 

[B&I]

Have the residents of GM really been that badly done by? Many have benefited from an extended tram network over the years, and although the timetables since May have been volatile generally speaking the area has good connectivity to it's core. Try heading over to somewhere like Leeds that has been crying out for greater public transport connectivity and tell them about poor old Greater Manchester!

As for the demands of the airport, well it does serve most if not all of the North of England, has grown by 40% in the last decade (according to their figures at least), and is currently at the beginning of a 7 year, billion pound expansion to programme to increase capacity by 50% (and of course make more employment opportunities for the good folk of GM, Cheshire etc). So yes, it's needs also need attention as it grows, otherwise GM's motorway network will quickly grind to halt, & GM commuter trains fill with nasty people with suitcases in the next few years by all those Jones' & ego-driven businesspeople you seem to believe are the airport's only customers!

I wonder how many of that 40% more passengers travel by train. And I wonder what the numbers of people travelling to the airport p.a. are in comparison to those travelling in and out of Manchester on an average working day

 

[Bantamzen]

We need focused and targeted improvements in the North *now*. I see dates like 2024 for completion of 15/16 and wonder how many years ago they would have been built in a comparable London station.

Well growth through the station itself is at around 25% over the last five years, so that shows growing demand. But regardless, people will continue to use Manchester Airport in growing numbers and in the absence of a teleport technology will need to either travel by road or rail to get there. Given that an extra 50% growth is anticipated, it makes sense to convince at least some percentage to switch modes to rail, unless of course you are happy for GM to have even worse congestion instead? Because despite your reservations, the board at Manchester Airport seem sufficiently confident of growth hence a not inconsiderable amount of investment.

 

[MarkyT]

Good article in Rail Engineer. The punchline is basically that Grayling's delay tactic on platforms 15/16 is nonsense.

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/09/03/digital-delusion-a-lesson-from-not-so-long-ago/

Agreed it's an excellent article. He is right about infrastructure, and that capacity is also a function of the 'actual traffic mix', which recognises stopping patterns, desired frequency and evenness of interval for each tier, variation in speed and acceleration capability, train lengths, etc. As demonstrated by this thread's discussions and totally unlike Thameslink, traffic is rich and varied on the Castlefield corridor even without the Ordsall chord and, whatever our blue sky rerouting speculations, the mix cannot realistically be changed significantly or quickly in this case. The Piccadilly and Oxford Road work is a simple intervention, already designed, that can be started soon and is guaranteed to bring some benefits in capacity, resilience, and flexibility. Go digital as well if it helps, but JFBI (just freakin' build it).