Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[LOL The Irony]

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

Because all Thameslink trains don't have single end doors like a 156.

 

[kevjs]

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

Based on past experience wouldn't they have just built yet another railway line and station which doesn't really connect properly with Piccadilly, Mayfield, Victoria, Central, or Oxford Road?

Because all Thameslink trains don't have single end doors like a 156.

And Thameslink also isn't acting as a intercity line (with suburban stock) as well as a commuter line....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Based on past experience wouldn't they have just built yet another railway line and station which doesn't really connect properly with Piccadilly, Mayfield, Victoria, Central, or Oxford Road?

The answer to that is that the pre-1922/3 amalgamation railway companies always seemed to want "their very own" station in the large cities.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Because all Thameslink trains don't have single end doors like a 156.

I can see that slower to load stock won't help, but the difference in the number of trains seems so big can that be the reason?

Thameslink also isn't acting as a intercity line (with suburban stock) as well as a commuter line

As the origin and destination are unlikely to affect loading at a single platform (and suburban stock may load a lot quicker) does that stack up?

I can see a lot of factors might make some difference but the gap is huge. The biggest factor in slowing loading must be (by my own observation) overcrowding.

 

[Amstel]

I was on a Transpennine service to the Airport this week which ended up being over half an hour late at Piccadilly. A couple of Americans on the train who were getting twitchy about missing their flight were quite rightly furious when the train was terminated there thus making them miss their flight. Long distance AIRPORT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED AT PICCADILLY.

Something must be done until the dreadful and incompetent Grayling is removed and platforms 15 and 16 are built. It is obvious 14 trains an hour (through Deansgate) doesn’t work, so these need to be reduced. In addition, as a frequent user of Deansgate it is also obvious that part of the solution is to reduce trains stopping there (4 one way and 5 the other).

So the solution in the shorter term could be something like:

- reduce the number of stopping trains at Deansgate to 2 an hour in each direction (this is in line with Tfgm’s policy with the passenger numbers there)

- reduce the number of trains through Deansgate from 14 to 12 by, say, diverting the Liverpool and Wigan stoppers to Victoria (one of the Airport and Alderley portions of these journeys could connect with the Blackpool Piccadilly terminator, leaving only one extra Piccadilly platform an hour to find).

 

[Chester1]

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.

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

Altrincham-Piccadilly and Bury-Piccadilly are the only two terminating Metrolink services at Piccadilly therefore would be the obvious ones to extend to Marple .They would benefit from the extra capacity for 60m units (extra 3m + no space wasted on two cabs and coupling). £200m does sound too cheap! Tram trains on the mid cheshire line had an awful business case. I doubt that will have changed in the last 5 years.

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?

None but 2tph diverted out of Piccadilly would provide options to divert services that use 13 and 14. Perhaps a recast to allow a TPE service to reverse across the station throat again.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I was on a Transpennine service to the Airport this week which ended up being over half an hour late at Piccadilly. A couple of Americans on the train who were getting twitchy about missing their flight were quite rightly furious when the train was terminated there thus making them miss their flight.

So maybe an hour late, maximum, into the Airport? I suspect they were cutting it rather fine to begin with if they missed the flight (do you know that or was it speculation?), as you're told to arrive at least two hours in advance for a long haul flight, but can usually get through in one if you're delayed en route. I'd never leave it that close, as you never know what might delay your journey.

 

[LOL The Irony]

So maybe an hour late, maximum, into the Airport? I suspect they were cutting it rather fine to begin with if they missed the flight (do you know that or was it speculation?), as you're told to arrive at least two hours in advance for a long haul flight, but can usually get through in one if you're delayed en route. I'd never leave it that close, as you never know what might delay your journey.

Well the previous train could have been canceled.

 

[142Pilot]

I was on a Transpennine service to the Airport this week which ended up being over half an hour late at Piccadilly. A couple of Americans on the train who were getting twitchy about missing their flight were quite rightly furious when the train was terminated there thus making them miss their flight. Long distance AIRPORT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED AT PICCADILLY.

Something must be done until the dreadful and incompetent Grayling is removed and platforms 15 and 16 are built. It is obvious 14 trains an hour (through Deansgate) doesn’t work, so these need to be reduced. In addition, as a frequent user of Deansgate it is also obvious that part of the solution is to reduce trains stopping there (4 one way and 5 the other).

So the solution in the shorter term could be something like:

- reduce the number of stopping trains at Deansgate to 2 an hour in each direction (this is in line with Tfgm’s policy with the passenger numbers there)

- reduce the number of trains through Deansgate from 14 to 12 by, say, diverting the Liverpool and Wigan stoppers to Victoria (one of the Airport and Alderley portions of these journeys could connect with the Blackpool Piccadilly terminator, leaving only one extra Piccadilly platform an hour to find).

Fine.

Terminate them at stalybridge then.

Let's see any attempt of service recovery then.

Piccadilly is the ideal place to terminate them, as they have a greater chance of getting another.

The airport services from every shanty town and shack from the north east has knackered it all up.

 

[Chester1]

So maybe an hour late, maximum, into the Airport? I suspect they were cutting it rather fine to begin with if they missed the flight (do you know that or was it speculation?), as you're told to arrive at least two hours in advance for a long haul flight, but can usually get through in one if you're delayed en route. I'd never leave it that close, as you never know what might delay your journey.

Well the previous train could have been canceled.

Perhaps but even then with the service frequency most people will have had only a little extra wait unless traveling from Scarborough etc. The next train from Piccadilly to the Airport should only be a few minutes wait. I arrive up 3 hours before long haul flights to avoid any chance of missing them. Cutting back late services should become much rarer from December when turn around times at the airport are increased.

 

[fowler9]

I was on a Transpennine service to the Airport this week which ended up being over half an hour late at Piccadilly. A couple of Americans on the train who were getting twitchy about missing their flight were quite rightly furious when the train was terminated there thus making them miss their flight. Long distance AIRPORT SERVICES SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED AT PICCADILLY.

Something must be done until the dreadful and incompetent Grayling is removed and platforms 15 and 16 are built. It is obvious 14 trains an hour (through Deansgate) doesn’t work, so these need to be reduced. In addition, as a frequent user of Deansgate it is also obvious that part of the solution is to reduce trains stopping there (4 one way and 5 the other).

So the solution in the shorter term could be something like:

- reduce the number of stopping trains at Deansgate to 2 an hour in each direction (this is in line with Tfgm’s policy with the passenger numbers there)

- reduce the number of trains through Deansgate from 14 to 12 by, say, diverting the Liverpool and Wigan stoppers to Victoria (one of the Airport and Alderley portions of these journeys could connect with the Blackpool Piccadilly terminator, leaving only one extra Piccadilly platform an hour to find).

How do you plan on diverting all the Liverpool stoppers to Victoria without leaving many CLC route stations with no service plus West Allerton and Mossley Hill?

 

[PR1Berske]

The airport services from every shanty town and shack from the north east has knackered it all up.

Really? That's the turn of phrase you're using?

 

[Boysteve]

The airport services from every shanty town and shack from the north east has knackered it all up.

No this is simply wrong. There were 2 TPEx services an hour from Manchester Airport to Leeds and beyond before the timetable change that caused all of the chaos.

 

[urbophile]

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?

I agree. And maybe this is a tangent too far away from platforms 15/16. What I was trying (badly) to say is that Metrolink serves the centre well with its on street tramway; it's less good at linking the extremities of the conurbation across that because of the slowness of the cross-city section. Merseyrail by contrast links cross-city traffic efficiently (though it could do more) at the expense of serving the city centre in a comprehensive way.

 

[142Pilot]

No this is simply wrong. There were 2 TPEx services an hour from Manchester Airport to Leeds and beyond before the timetable change that caused all of the chaos.

The timetable change is effectively over.

The issue now is the all long distance trains piling into Manchester already late and then being caped, causing more issues in the area.

And yes, I use shanty and shack. What of it?

 

[Boysteve]

And yes, I use shanty and shack. What of it?

Err I am not sure who the question is aimed at! Anyway, to be clear, my comment was driven by your specific mention of the North East nothing to do with shantys or shacks for what its worth.

 

[kevjs]

As the origin and destination are unlikely to affect loading at a single platform (and suburban stock may load a lot quicker) does that stack up?

I meant Regional rather than Suburban - the EMT 158's (themselves often over crowded) seem to take twice as long as timetabled IME with everyone struggling to get on and off a train which is crowded and with stupidly narrow doorways, onto a platform itself overcrowded. The TPE services from Glasgow are nearly as bad (but with a bit more space on the doors). Really does not help that the platform is being used for intercity interchanges as well as local services.

The platform crowding is obviously a factor, but Intercity services with inappropriate rolling stock and extended dwell times as a result cannot be helping matters. One day I will be on a train which leaves Wigan/Bolton or Stockport on time (which is usually happens tbf) and arrives in Manchester Piccadilly on time, but that has failed to happen in 18 years so far... (2 - 12 times a year)

 

[a_c_skinner]

Having suggested banning end door stock wouldn't it be as good or better to ban trains shorter than four cars, six ideally (I think that would fit most of the important stops for a lot of the services). That would speed up embarking and disembarking.

 

[142Pilot]

Err I am not sure who the question is aimed at! Anyway, to be clear, my comment was driven by your specific mention of the North East nothing to do with shantys or shacks for what its worth.

Sorry, knackered up the quote button.

I see TPE clogging up Oxford road, Picc and Victoria every day, running late (not surprising given the destance travelled)

It's due to the increase of trains going through the most congested set of junctions in the north - add freight into the mix and it's no wonder it cannot work.

The answer? God knows. No money is going to be spend and all these minor councils in the north east all want a piece of the Manchester Airport pie. Too many services of 3 car 185's when logic would have them run to York or Leeds/ huddersfield and then transfer them into 6 car 185's which can in effect do shuttles.

 

[Greybeard33]

Having suggested banning end door stock wouldn't it be as good or better to ban trains shorter than four cars, six ideally (I think that would fit most of the important stops for a lot of the services). That would speed up embarking and disembarking.

Apart from issues of door positioning and train length, IMO a more fundamental issue is that a high proportion of passengers on every through train either disembark or embark at Piccadilly. So the passenger flows on the island are much greater than those on most through platforms elsewhere, and indeed greater than those on a terminal platform. At a busy terminal, such as the Piccadilly main shed, arrivals and departures from adjacent platforms are often staggered, so alighting and boarding passengers have more space to spread out and avoid each other. The narrow island has to serve trains at both P13 and P14 concurrently, which increases congestion in the central area and on the stairway.

With P15 and P16 operational, the majority of passengers on those platforms would be boarding westbound services, while the majority on P13 and P14 would be alighting from eastbound services. This would greatly reduce platform congestion.

 

[Chester1]

Apart from issues of door positioning and train length, IMO a more fundamental issue is that a high proportion of passengers on every through train either disembark or embark at Piccadilly. So the passenger flows on the island are much greater than those on most through platforms elsewhere, and indeed greater than those on a terminal platform. At a busy terminal, such as the Piccadilly main shed, arrivals and departures from adjacent platforms are often staggered, so alighting and boarding passengers have more space to spread out and avoid each other. The narrow island has to serve trains at both P13 and P14 concurrently, which increases congestion in the central area and on the stairway.

With P15 and P16 operational, the majority of passengers on those platforms would be boarding westbound services, while the majority on P13 and P14 would be alighting from eastbound services. This would greatly reduce platform congestion.

I agree. Longer units would help reduce overcrowding delays e.g. with 3 coach 185s but the high turnover at Piccadilly is the primary cause of long dwell time. A ban on end door units would be a vast improvement but would need a huge recast of services. An exception could be made for TPE Scotland services but the North TPE services would need to be double 185s or diverted elsewhere. Now that some of the stops added in May are being removed from Piccadilly-Hull why not go the whole hog by removing the rest and opperating it with Mark Vs or 802s to concentrate 185s on services through 13 and 14?

 

[a_c_skinner]

high proportion of passengers on every through train either disembark or embark at Piccadilly

High turnover seems to apply on all the Thameslink platforms I've been on, perhaps not as high as at MAN but high. I'm still trying to drill down on the disparity on the number of trains each double track route can manage.

 

[js1000]

Chaos again on Friday evening on 13/14. The government should just bite the bullet. Regardless of cost to benefit ratio - the government is eventually going to have to spend £1 billion to fix the rail capacity problem through Manchester. The lost productivity being late to work most mornings has a financial cost.

 

[Killingworth]

Chaos again on Friday evening on 13/14. The government should just bite the bullet. Regardless of cost to benefit ratio - the government is eventually going to have to spend £1 billion to fix the rail capacity problem through Manchester. The lost productivity being late to work most mornings has a financial cost.

I note the 17.42 for Nottingham was expected to depart at 18.02 from 13, 20 minutes late. The previous 16.42 left at 17.06, 24 minutes late.

That train had made it all the way from Norwich to South Liverpool almost on time before arriving at Lime Street 9 minutes late. Leaving again 7 minutes late it was 30 minutes late by Nottingham and 54 minutes late into Norwich. The bulk of the delays are west of Piccadilly and those two congested platforms don't help one bit.

We're asked why it's not like Thameslink. Once so many trains are running late things start to accumulate.

As an example, these hourly Liverpool-Norwich trains form half of the Manchester-Sheffield half hourly fast service, the other half being Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes from TPE. Northern also operate an hourly stopping service. (They also form half the half hourly Sheffield-Nottingham service along with Northern's Leeds-Nottingham.) So, 3 possible trains from Piccadilly to Sheffield, from 3 different platforms, at opposite ends of the station! Where do I go to get the quickest train? Will any of them have a seat? Will I be able to get in at all? And if the East Midlands train is half an hour or more late will it stop at Dore and Sheffield?

Here's that 16.42 when it was leaving Ely earlier in the day, having arrived 3 minutes late, but saving a minute on the reversal. 4 coaches east of Nottingham on a Saturday.

The reason for delay at the western end today due to strike action on Northern by RMT guard members.

 

[a_c_skinner]

We're asked why it's not like Thameslink. Once so many trains are running late things start to accumulate.

That has been said before, but isn't it just a matter of pushing the trains down the core double track in the order in which they arrive? I can see late arrivals causing disruption, but not limiting the overall capacity. I'm not trying to be argumentative BTW, a genuine question. I can see that if there was so much late running that the track had spells of being empty as there was nothing to put down the line, then that would limit capacity, but do we ever get to that position? If we do I've not been there when it happened.

Edit: Either way this bit of track needs a Thameslink 2000 type solution. We must hope there are no buildings in the way Prince Charles likes. Perhaps sending him some snaps of Mayfield would move things on?

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree. Longer units would help reduce overcrowding delays e.g. with 3 coach 185s but the high turnover at Piccadilly is the primary cause of long dwell time. A ban on end door units would be a vast improvement but would need a huge recast of services. An exception could be made for TPE Scotland services but the North TPE services would need to be double 185s or diverted elsewhere. Now that some of the stops added in May are being removed from Piccadilly-Hull why not go the whole hog by removing the rest and opperating it with Mark Vs or 802s to concentrate 185s on services through 13 and 14?

From discussion on the December 2018 Timetable Change thread, part of TPE's temporary mitigation (from Dec 2018 to Dec 2019) will be interworking of the Newcastle and Middlesbrough services at Manchester Airport. This will increase turnround times from 10 minutes to 40 minutes and so should reduce the incidence of terminating short at Piccadilly. But it also might prolong the use of 185s on the Airport services. TPE has hitherto planned to restrict the Mk5A sets to the Middlesbrough and Scarborough routes, which would preclude them working Airport services before December 2019.

 

[Altfish]

High turnover seems to apply on all the Thameslink platforms I've been on, perhaps not as high as at MAN but high. I'm still trying to drill down on the disparity on the number of trains each double track route can manage.

Thameslink has longer trains, stopping in the same place of similar build up and not many freight.

 

[Mogster]

Improvement would seem to need a coordinated effort between local and central government, half a dozen TOCs and network rail...

Everything is awful and contributing to the problem. The stations, track layout, signalling, stock... Then there’s the issues surrounding closing the line if you do major works which would seem to be unacceptable. The only plus point is with the situation being so bad and it’s effects so widespread it seems something has to be done. The government needs to spend £1BN or more in Manchester but is that going to happen???

 

[js1000]

More problems today - not helped by signal failure in the morning near Manchester Airport which put everything out of kilter. I worry it's only a matter of time before someone falls on the tracks on 13 & 14. It's sad a serious injury or death is the criteria for which transport infrastructure should be approved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thameslink has longer trains, stopping in the same place of similar build up and not many freight.

The overcrowding is a very big cause of the issues as it slows down boarding and alighting, hence my view in favour of a minimum train length through Castlefield of *at least* 4x20m, quite possibly longer. Portion work if necessary to bring up to the appropriate length if they can't be justified alone and you'd free up a few paths too.

Certainly the 2-car DMU should be found only on country branch lines now. That means none of them within 10 miles of Manchester Piccadilly other than perhaps beyond Bolton towards Blackburn.

People think South East commuter services are overcrowded, but in my experience things are far worse up north now - and unlike down South all you need to solve it is more rolling stock - things are nowhere near the maximum if you accept that SDO will be needed in places.

From my experience of the EMT trains noted above, these could now do with being 6x23m west of Nottingham.