Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[edwin_m]

It is possible - I've seen it done and disembarked from the rear end of 14 when there was disruption. I'm not going to pretend it's the ultimate solution, but it's a good interim measure. The longest waits are when passengers embark and disembark the trains so by having two at once, with clear PIS to avoid confusion, it will speed up journeys, just as Krus said.

You may have disembarked OK but you probably didn't hang around to witness the chaos just afterwards as the departing passengers tried to get to their train.

 

[_toommm_]

You may have disembarked OK but you probably didn't hang around to witness the chaos just afterwards as the departing passengers tried to get to their train.

I did hang around as I was changing onto another train. There was no more chaos than there normally is on P13/14. There is a distinct period between a train being clearly ready to have the doors shut, to the train getting the right away. That is more than enough time for the signaller to decide whether a train will need to use the 'B' end of the platform, which won't create a stampede. While it won't solve the narrow throats between tje stations, the train can then obviously move off once it gets the signal.

 

[Killingworth]

That might work if everything arrived on time to the second. But the existing arrangement would also work in that happy situation. As soon as any pair of trains were in the wrong order it would be necessary to swap them to the "wrong" ends of the platform.

Have you ever been there when a train is switched to a B platform? I can assure you there is absolute chaos as people twig something is going on, then start making their way through the crowds of people waiting for later trains, past the bottleneck of the stairs. By this time the train has arrived and they then have to fight their way against the wave of people alighting and heading for the exit. 10min additional delay is easily possible, plus a load of angry passengers who never heard the announcement. And that's only when one train switches to B - in the situation I described above two trains would be swapping so there would be an equal number of passengers trying to do the same thing in the opposite direction.

If only some of those making decisions could spend some time on 13/14 as a real passenger they might better appreciate the reality. 15/16 should be there now to spread the current load, let alone cope with further increases.

How we cope during any construction period must be a very major consideration in the decision process. It's not going to get better any time soon. In the meantime any minor adjustments are like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, not least because people can't be physically moved digitally.

 

[Altfish]

But when the second train leaves, the third and fourth ones can pull up in quick succession, effectively flighting trains through in pairs.

It's not much, and doesn't address the crowding on-platform, but it could offer something. Just not as much as platforms 15 and 16 could.

That's fine if you can guarantee the order of the approaching trains, but when one has come from Norwich and the other is running late from the Airport, guaranteeing the order is nigh on impossible. Unless of course you want to delay trains on the approaches.

 

[krus_aragon]

That might work if everything arrived on time to the second. But the existing arrangement would also work in that happy situation. As soon as any pair of trains were in the wrong order it would be necessary to swap them to the "wrong" ends of the platform.

Hence my mention of platform overcrowding still being an issue.

(I've never been a regular user of Piccadilly, but acknowledge the lack of space is far worse than what I saw at Cardiff Queen St's island platform pre-expansion.)

 

[krus_aragon]

That's fine if you can guarantee the order of the approaching trains, but when one has come from Norwich and the other is running late from the Airport, guaranteeing the order is nigh on impossible. Unless of course you want to delay trains on the approaches.

There'd be scope for doing that ordering from the Oxford Road direction, but eastbound trains are, as you suggest, another case entirely.

I wonder if the implementers of the "digital railway" might plan to allocate the "A" and "B" ends dynamically as the trains arrive, and use those new screens to tell passengers (held back in the waiting area) which end of the platform to go to, and when.

Even if it all lined up, it'd be a precarious setup, and not one that I want to advocate (just think through).

 

[Brissle Girl]

In other news, Network Rail announces the start of the consultation process on a massive infrastructure project at Croydon to improve capacity and reliability. North/South divide anyone? I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by Northern MPs.

 

[LOL The Irony]

In other news, Network Rail announces the start of the consultation process on a massive infrastructure project at Croydon to improve capacity and reliability.

Meanwhile, Oxford Road is the worst station in the UK for delays. 13 & 14 could be solved with digital signalling if Picc-Vic was built. Sadly for grayling and his puppy dog, the only part of Picc-Vic built is an escalator well underneath the Arndale and the project was abandoned in favour of Metrolink.

 

[Altfish]

Meanwhile, Oxford Road is the worst station in the UK for delays. 13 & 14 could be solved with digital signalling if Picc-Vic was built. Sadly for grayling and his puppy dog, the only part of Picc-Vic built is an escalator well underneath the Arndale and the project was abandoned in favour of Metrolink.

And Metrolink has been a massive success.

 

[LOL The Irony]

And Metrolink has been a massive success.

Indeed it has.

 

[Clip]

In other news, Network Rail announces the start of the consultation process on a massive infrastructure project at Croydon to improve capacity and reliability. North/South divide anyone? I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up by Northern MPs.

As the tears silently shatter on a wet Manchester footpath its worth pointing out that this is a consultation process and not any actual physical work starting - a bit like how most of the projects in the North actually are

 

[urbophile]

Indeed it has.

Well yes. But as an urban tram system for a compact city centre. I'm not a regular traveller on it, but I would guess that it works less well as a regional/suburban rail network. Paradoxically something like Metrolink would be better suited to Merseyside, and a Merseyrail type network for GM.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well yes. But as an urban tram system for a compact city centre. I'm not a regular traveller on it, but I would guess that it works less well as a regional/suburban rail network. Paradoxically something like Metrolink would be better suited to Merseyside, and a Merseyrail type network for GM.

Metrolink reaches Manchester Airport, Altrincham, Bury, Ashton-under-Lyne, East Didsbury and Eccles which are all quite some miles away from "the compact city centre" as you choose to so describe.

 

[Clip]

Metrolink reaches Manchester Airport, Altrincham, Bury, Ashton-under-Lyne, East Didsbury and Eccles which are all quite some miles away from "the compact city centre" as you choose to so describe.

Quite but im guessing thats the 'works less well as a regional/suburban rail network' part he was on about. Which is more than likely true overall.

 

[furnessvale]

Metrolink reaches Manchester Airport, Altrincham, Bury, Ashton-under-Lyne, East Didsbury and Eccles which are all quite some miles away from "the compact city centre" as you choose to so describe.

I think that is what the poster is saying. The further you move from a "compact city centre" the less effective a metrolink becomes as a transport system.

 

[Camden]

Well yes. But as an urban tram system for a compact city centre. I'm not a regular traveller on it, but I would guess that it works less well as a regional/suburban rail network. Paradoxically something like Metrolink would be better suited to Merseyside, and a Merseyrail type network for GM.

If the system is only good for serving a compact city centre, then I don't see why you would conclude the system is good enough for Liverpool versus Manchester. Liverpool's city centre isn't compact, but fairly sprawling. And its suburbs perhaps more extensive than Manchester's. Surely serving any large city with trams alone isn't ideal?

Metrolink isn't perfect, but I don't think it was ever expected to be, instead it has worked as something that can be developed over time.

It reaches reasonable speeds on dedicated track, and delivers people close to where they want to go. And it is in addition to a comprehensive railway network.

It is the case that local rail connectivity has played second fiddle to national rail connectivity, but that's an entirely local choice. Manchester has been completely in control of not just its own lobbying positions but also listened to to the extent that no one else's has mattered.

It's not the wrong equipment that causes severe congestion in Manchester, it's wrong decisions.

 

[Altfish]

Manchester's geology is not great for tunnelling (It can be done but many problems unless you go very deep) - there are two (at least) buried rivers, the River Tib will cause the most problems.

There is a problem with the split of local government in the Manchester area. The likes of Glossop, Knutsford, Wilmslow, etc. are NOT in Greater Manchester and therefore receive little consideration by TfGM when planning schemes

 

[yoyothehobo]

Yep, the geology only gets to solid rock at 15m ish and from experience you have to get a good 5m into it before you get any decent strength from it. Not to mention it is incredibly porous so gets a lot of groundwater in it. Nothing compared to tunneling through the London Clay!

 

[furnessvale]

It reaches reasonable speeds on dedicated track, and delivers people close to where they want to go. And it is in addition to a comprehensive railway network.

Except that two of its lines were conversions of existing electrified heavy rail into trams.

 

[Tomnick]

Meanwhile, Oxford Road is the worst station in the UK for delays. 13 & 14 could be solved with digital signalling if Picc-Vic was built. Sadly for grayling and his puppy dog, the only part of Picc-Vic built is an escalator well underneath the Arndale and the project was abandoned in favour of Metrolink.

“Digital signalling” alone (still not sure how the existing system with its relay interlocking is anything other than digital) won’t get passengers on and off trains any more quickly.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Except that two of its lines were conversions of existing electrified heavy rail into trams.

Both of which were life-expired and one of them was non-standard anyway. When I've used the Bury line it's seemed no worse than what it would've ended up as if it'd stayed heavy-rail: de-electrified and served with 142s!

 

[Altfish]

Except that two of its lines were conversions of existing electrified heavy rail into trams.

Two heavy lines that dropped you at the edge of the city and one of which would have added yet more traffic to the Oxford Road corridor.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Beside the two ex-heavy rail lines that have already been mentioned, allowing for the newer Oldham town centre route as replacement for the line via the two tunnels at Werneth, the Oldham loop line (Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale) was a third ex-heavy rail line to be converted to the Metrolink system.

 

[edwin_m]

Beside the two ex-heavy rail lines that have already been mentioned, allowing for the newer Oldham town centre route as replacement for the line via the two tunnels at Werneth, the Oldham loop line (Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale) was a third ex-heavy rail line to be converted to the Metrolink system.

And of course Didsbury was a heavy rail line, though re-opened for Metrolink rather than being converted.

 

[Chester1]

Two heavy lines that dropped you at the edge of the city and one of which would have added yet more traffic to the Oxford Road corridor.

Beside the two ex-heavy rail lines that have already been mentioned, allowing for the newer Oldham town centre route as replacement for the line via the two tunnels at Werneth, the Oldham loop line (Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale) was a third ex-heavy rail line to be converted to the Metrolink system.

Metrolink will never be given credit by heavy rail purists! 60m tram-trains with a top speed of 60mph on Altrincham-Bury, Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly would be a good progression for Metrolink. In 2013 TfGM estimated 10tph of Tram-trains to Marple would cost £200m including contingency and stock. That would free up more terminating capacity at Piccadilly, relieving some pressure on 13-14.

A small but quick improvement would be moving the WH Smiths in the satellite lounge down to the area between platforms 10 and 11. That would free up space to put a partition along a straight line from the top of the escalators to improve the flow of people and the quality of the lounge.

Two extra platforms won't be a silver bullet if the proposed 16tph are introduced. That just gets us back to the platform usage of 8tph per island platform that existed until very recently. A recast of services and ban on end door units would help the most but I can't see it happening so soon after Ordsall Chord opened.

 

[superkev]

I cant help thinking the Victorians rather than talking would have had 15 16 built by now.
K

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I cant help thinking the Victorians rather than talking would have had 15 16 built by now.
K

Though they didn't have to deal with property speculators throwing up tower blocks right in the path of where they wanted to build their railway... largely because the railway barons WERE the speculators.

 

[Altfish]

Metrolink will never be given credit by heavy rail purists! 60m tram-trains with a top speed of 60mph on Altrincham-Bury, Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly would be a good progression for Metrolink.

Tram-Trains are not needed on those lines, unless you want to double track Deansgate Junc to Navigation Road. Surely Knutsford (or even Northwich) to Bury & Piccadilly is more ambitious.

In 2013 TfGM estimated 10tph of Tram-trains to Marple would cost £200m including contingency and stock. That would free up more terminating capacity at Piccadilly, relieving some pressure on 13-14.

That sounds very cheap. It would take more than that to get from the Undercroft back up to BR level.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

60m tram-trains with a top speed of 60mph on Altrincham-Bury, Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly would be a good progression for Metrolink. In 2013 TfGM estimated 10tph of Tram-trains to Marple would cost £200m including contingency and stock. That would free up more terminating capacity at Piccadilly, relieving some pressure on 13-14.

How many Marple-bound trains run from platforms 13 and 14 compared with those that leave from the terminal platforms in the main train shed...if any?

 

[a_c_skinner]

That just gets us back to the platform usage of 8tph per island platform that existed until very recently.

I'm still not clear why two platforms on Thameslink can manage three times that.