Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[MarkyT]

This line has always been an achillles heel of any long distance service that has attempted to use it. I believe that to have been the case with early Operation Princess XC services. Every single time I travelled south from Manchester to Reading at that time the hourly through train from Glasgow lost double figure minutes between Bolton and Piccadilly and that then led to yet more time lost as paths across subsequent junctions further south were missed on the way home. Of course Railtrack's bone headed 'regulation strategy' of the time didn't help with its 'miss your slot and you're back of the queue' approach no matter what the downstream consequences of that decision. So perhaps one of Haines' comments hints at an approach that might have some merit which is to exploit the traffic management elements of 'digital' to enable better real time planning, i.e. an intelligent regulating strategy with a back channel to the cab via C-DAS to instruct some approaching trains to ease up or even hurry a bit where that's possible to coincide with a dynamically created real time path through the area. That doesn't require the full ERTMS/ATO fitment on all or most stock but implies a bit of extra pathing margin added downstream and is likely to result in some effects and possible interventions required at other junctions as well. I believe the new infrastructure AND better planning tools are required to enable better real time regulation of the kind of traffic mix that the DfT has forced TOCs and NR to try and run through the area, without supporting the infrastructure authority's original assertion that additional work is required to achieve that.

 

[Senex]

Who specified the door layout of new stock for TPEx - oh yes the DfT!

And they specified right, given that this stock will be working services over routes longer than all the Great Western inter-city services, all the LNER Leeds services, all the VT Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool services. This stuff needs to be genuine inter-city stock, not glorified outer suburban material. The 15/16 problem is just another example of typical British cheese-paring.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really what Manchester needs is to flatten Piccadilly and build a totally new station with say 18 or 20 through platforms. That way you'd have German style resilience - for instance, the Liverpool to Norwich could wait time there for 10 minutes and ensure punctuality.

But 15/16 is absolutely needed and I'm astonished that there is any doubt of that in any circles at all.

 

[cle]

Terrible decision, but I have faith that it will be righted in time. Either as an election sop, or indeed with a change in personnel/‘direction’.

Typical though, it’s depressing to be so nonchalant and expectant of these let-downs in this country. It’s only going to get worse too, in terms of infrastructure spending.

 

[Cletus]

Further to earlier posts about the pub between Piccadilly and Mayfield, it now appears to be closed and boarded up.

Last two evenings there seems to be security men outside. Not sure why?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Further to earlier posts about the pub between Piccadilly and Mayfield, it now appears to be closed and boarded up.

Last two evenings there seems to be security men outside. Not sure why?

To stop urban explorers and trophy hunters perhaps?

 

[B&I]

You could remove those services, sending them to Victoria instead, and stopping using a certain Chord that should not have been built in preference to P15/16, and truncate Liverpool-Norwich to Manchester. So local services only, either using Class 319 or 2 x Class 150 (giving a near identical door spacing which could be marked on the platform).

Not desirable, but certainly an option if Thameslink style operations are needed.

No, not desirable to cut back still further Liverpool's long distance services, you'll be amazed to hear me say.

Ultimately there needs to be an east-west tunnel, and Castlefields needs to be cleared of long distance trains for a Greater Manchester S bahn

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Really what Manchester needs is to flatten Piccadilly and build a totally new station with say 18 or 20 through platforms.

Noting the existing rail connectional requirements from both directions, plus the existing route through the university campus that lies between Piccadilly and Oxford Road station and the redevelopment of the former BBC site on Oxford Road, I look forward to hearing of the location of your suggested site for your proposed new replacement railway station.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Further to earlier posts about the pub between Piccadilly and Mayfield, it now appears to be closed and boarded up.

Last two evenings there seems to be security men outside. Not sure why?

So we still lose one of Manchester's best* indie-rock bars but DON'T get P15&16 as part of the bargain?

Bl**dy typical!

*=well, the music was good. The beer was cr*p though!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

"Very long to deliver and hugely expensive".

Totally unlike Thameslink "2000" and the Crossrail budget overrun, of course...

Not the same - that is London. Different set of rules

 

[Concrete Loz]

So we still lose one of Manchester's best* indie-rock bars but DON'T get P15&16 as part of the bargain?

Bl**dy typical!

*=well, the music was good. The beer was cr*p though!

I noticed the Star and Garter from P14 earlier in the week and it looked to me as if they were filming something in there. It didn't strike me as being boarded up for closure, rather the windows appeared to be covered up for lighting effects.

 

[PR1Berske]

The Star and Garter Facebook page is advertising events for November so it's still with us.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Noting the existing rail connectional requirements from both directions, plus the existing route through the university campus that lies between Piccadilly and Oxford Road station and the redevelopment of the former BBC site on Oxford Road, I look forward to hearing of the location of your suggested site for your proposed new replacement railway station.

It could go on the existing site but rotated west about 45 degrees. I don't genuinely think it is a viable idea for many reasons, though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It could go on the existing site but rotated west about 45 degrees. I don't genuinely think it is a viable idea for many reasons, though.

That being said, how would Manchester cope with the time-period closure of Piccadilly station during the period of demolition of the existing station and the rebuilding of the new replacement station on the existing site There is the other related matter of the proposed HS2 station and its planned route approaches that is said to run parallel to the existing station also to consider. That is before we look at what property in central Manchester would be affected by the proposed 45 degree western rotation of the railway station.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Really what Manchester needs is to flatten Piccadilly and build a totally new station with say 18 or 20 through platforms.

It could go on the existing site but rotated west about 45 degrees. I don't genuinely think it is a viable idea for many reasons, though.

One of those reason's being that the train shed is listed.

 

[Mollman]

And they specified right, given that this stock will be working services over routes longer than all the Great Western inter-city services, all the LNER Leeds services, all the VT Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool services. This stuff needs to be genuine inter-city stock, not glorified outer suburban material. The 15/16 problem is just another example of typical British cheese-paring.

I'm not saying the door layout is wrong - although us in Hull will have to put up with "glorified outer suburban material" for a lot longer. It is the fact that the DfT specified the trains, specified the use of the Ordsall Cord and then try and get out of the only long term solution to the problem at Picc by saying that the door layout is wrong!

 

[Killingworth]

That being said, how would Manchester cope with the time-period closure of Piccadilly station during the period of demolition of the existing station and the rebuilding of the new replacement station on the existing site There is the other related matter of the proposed HS2 station and its planned route approaches that is said to run parallel to the existing station also to consider. That is before we look at what property in central Manchester would be affected by the proposed 45 degree western rotation of the railway station.

How would/will Manchester cope with the building of Platforms 15 and 16 and their associated approaches? That in itself must be quite a challenge in a city centre surrounded by road and rail traffic, plus rivers and canals. Delays and congestion will be with us for as long as can be foreseen whatever seems likely to happen, digital railway included.

 

[MarkyT]

How would/will Manchester cope with the building of Platforms 15 and 16 and their associated approaches? That in itself must be quite a challenge in a city centre surrounded by road and rail traffic, plus rivers and canals. Delays and congestion will be with us for as long as can be foreseen whatever seems likely to happen, digital railway included.

The Piccadilly 15/16 works will have little impact on existing rail infrastructure and services during the majority of the construction period although some elements and access routes will clearly need tying in at some point and there will need to be a 'big bang' at the end to finish connecting the track layout and accomplish the final signalling alterations. The new island platform and track supports themselves look to be largely new self standing structures clear of existing tracks. The Oxford Road works on the other hand, involving widening both sides of the existing viaduct, look to be more difficult and potentially more disruptive. Could one site without the other be worth considering, or an alternative scheme for Oxford Road with an entirely new staggered eastbound island and additional up track extending to the the west of the existing station site above the road while leaving a westbound island at the existing site. A possibly less disruptive scheme to rail traffic perhaps? With potential for creating an easier additional western entrance as well with the possibility then of closing Deansgate.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How would/will Manchester cope with the building of Platforms 15 and 16 and their associated approaches? That in itself must be quite a challenge in a city centre surrounded by road and rail traffic, plus rivers and canals. Delays and congestion will be with us for as long as can be foreseen whatever seems likely to happen, digital railway included.

Whilst you mention the challenges appertaining of the platform 15 and 16 project and its associated approaches, it is miniscule compared to what I stated in my posting refutement on posting # 1454 of the hypothesis put forward by Bletcheyite for the total demolition of Manchester Piccadilly railway statement and a rebuild on the same site "rotated west about 45 degrees".

 

[cle]

Is this digital railway the same unknown technology which will save the Irish border, customs at Dover and so forth? Sounds like BS to kick issues out of one’s tenure...

A lot of P15-16 could be done alongside the current service, likely with a few changes and terminations in the adjoining platforms, like the Norwich. North Wales to Victoria, and heavy use of Oxford Road as a terminus westbound and towards Preston. It’s not the end of the world.

The platforms themselves and access would be possible to begin, but the track work would of course need closures.

 

[Senex]

Is this digital railway the same unknown technology which will save the Irish border, customs at Dover and so forth? Sounds like BS to kick issues out of one’s tenure...

A lot of P15-16 could be done alongside the current service, likely with a few changes and terminations in the adjoining platforms, like the Norwich. North Wales to Victoria, and heavy use of Oxford Road as a terminus westbound and towards Preston. It’s not the end of the world.

The platforms themselves and access would be possible to begin, but the track work would of course need closures.

Or is "digital railway" just the special British name for ERTMS using ETCS Level 3?

 

[js1000]

That's horrendous. Platforms 13 and 14 are overcrowded and unsafe at the moment. All of the extra capacity for passengers that was bought by constructing the satellite lounge in 2002 has been used up. Does someone actually need to fall from the platform in order to get 15 and 16 built?

I do fear that the only way for 15 & 16 at Piccadilly to go ahead is if someone does indeed fall onto the track.

That's why I feel Grayling's persistence on not approving the new platforms is somewhat baffling as it has inherent safety risks that have been identified by passengers, Network Rail and TOCs.

If I were a government minister I'd rather just approve the scheme no matter what the cost if it meant it avoided the risk of me being partly responsible for a tragic accident. Common sense ain't common I guess.

 

[Andyh82]

To me, it doesn’t even seem to a project that would cost that much money. A short viaduct on already cleared flat land. Looks easier than the Ordsall Curve was.

 

[Killingworth]

Whilst you mention the challenges appertaining of the platform 15 and 16 project and its associated approaches, it is miniscule compared to what I stated in my posting refutement on posting # 1454 of the hypothesis put forward by Bletcheyite for the total demolition of Manchester Piccadilly railway statement and a rebuild on the same site "rotated west about 45 degrees".

Total demolition of Piccadilly is only possible in dreams. Small stages co-ordinated over decades would be difficult to imagine. Given the 20 years or more it's taking just to get started on a now approved TAO to rebuild a second platform at Dore & Totley with track laid on a bed that's existed for 125 years, plus a couple of loops, it's a miracle anything new is being built at all.

However, extending sidings for freight trains at Buxton is going ahead. "This will enable longer freight trains to be accommodated on the Buxton to Edgeley Junction Passenger Line to increase freight capacity between the Peak Forest and Hope Valley quarry terminals and London via Dore South Junction and the Midland Mainline." The fragmented railway is also wanting to send another fast passenger train each hour into, and probably through, Piccadilly from Sheffield.

I understand Jo Johnson was reminded of the need to get on with the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme when he was at the TfN board meeting in Sheffield yesterday. I have no knowledge of anything being said about 15 and 16.

 

[geoffk]

I do fear that the only way for 15 & 16 at Piccadilly to go ahead is if someone does indeed fall onto the track.

That's why I feel Grayling's persistence on not approving the new platforms is somewhat baffling as it has inherent safety risks that have been identified by passengers, Network Rail and TOCs.

If I were a government minister I'd rather just approve the scheme no matter what the cost if it meant it avoided the risk of me being partly responsible for a tragic accident. Common sense ain't common I guess.

It should be possible to operate the platforms as 13A and B, 14A and B, as there are mid-platform signals which would admit two trains at a time. Provided passengers can be educated about where to stand (and this doesn't seem to be a problem in Leeds where some platforms are subdivided into A, B, C and D) it would also have the effect of spreading them along the platform so they don't congregate in one place. Of course this depends on trains arriving in the correct order.

Why have the mid-platform signals if this method of operation was not intended?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Or is "digital railway" just the special British name for ERTMS using ETCS Level 3?

Level 3 is effectively moving block with wireless detection of train position rather than using fixed position equipment such as track circuits or axle counters. It's horribly expensive, especially to apply it to existing lines, and I very much doubt we will see it widely used in this country for many more years. Thameslink ATO is no more ambitious than Level 2: that seems to be the model on which Grayling is pinning his hopes. Of course basic Level 2 is already in use on the Cambrian but has thus far been dependent on the use of a dedicated trainfleet such was the expense of retro-fitting the necessary on-train equipment. Does anyone seriously believe that the DfT would fund the fitting of the kit to all trains that might use the Castlefield corridor? Or that it would take the opposite approach and destroy all the through links made possible by the route and reduce it to a purely local metro operated by perhaps just two or three routes/service patterns, with the purchase also of a new purpose built fleet? Which would still leave the issue of freight.

There are no cheap answers to maintaining the current connectivity while improving resilience. Platform 15/16 is surely the best solution but perhaps Manchester is too northern to justify so much expense on concrete while not providing much benefit to London-bound passengers.

 

[furnessvale]

However, extending sidings for freight trains at Buxton is going ahead. "This will enable longer freight trains to be accommodated on the Buxton to Edgeley Junction Passenger Line to increase freight capacity between the Peak Forest and Hope Valley quarry terminals and London via Dore South Junction and the Midland Mainline."

The purpose of the extended siding at Buxton seems to be a little confused.

Currently trains from Dowlow are limited to 18 wagons due to the short run round loop at Buxton which those trains use to reach Peak Forest. Lengthening that loop will facilitate 27 wagon trains. In future these longer trains will still run via Peak Forest before heading east and west at Chinley on the Hope Valley line.

If freights ran directly from Dowlow to Edgeley via Whaley Bridge they wouldn't need to use the loop, but gradients from Buxton to Dove Holes would preclude the use of longer trains in any case.

Lengthening the loop at Buxton will have no effect on Peak Forest freights which do not go that way.

 

[Ianno87]

A lot of P15-16 could be done alongside the current service, likely with a few changes and terminations in the adjoining platforms, like the Norwich. North Wales to Victoria, and heavy use of Oxford Road as a terminus westbound and towards Preston. It’s not the end of the world.

The platforms themselves and access would be possible to begin, but the track work would of course need closures.

Yes, they should be largely be able to be built off line, but I would imagine the viaduct structure would be quite complex, in the way it needs to straddle Fairfield St etc.

It should be possible to operate the platforms as 13A and B, 14A and B, as there are mid-platform signals which would admit two trains at a time. Provided passengers can be educated about where to stand (and this doesn't seem to be a problem in Leeds where some platforms are subdivided into A, B, C and D) it would also have the effect of spreading them along the platform so they don't congregate in one place. Of course this depends on trains arriving in the correct order.

Why have the mid-platform signals if this method of operation was not intended?

The mid-platforms are really for closing up, so the trains can reocccupy the A ends more quickly (i.e. start to move into the platform as the first train is leaving)

Bringing a train into the B end was more common 15-20 years ago, but the passenger effect was chaotic, and usually caused more delay than it saved.

Problem with planning services to use the A and B end, even with good information of where to stand, is that the platform circulation areas aren't up to (say) trains dumping out on 13B and 14A simultaneously, which would swamp the staircase.

 

[Greybeard33]

The purpose of the extended siding at Buxton seems to be a little confused.

Currently trains from Dowlow are limited to 18 wagons due to the short run round loop at Buxton which those trains use to reach Peak Forest. Lengthening that loop will facilitate 27 wagon trains. In future these longer trains will still run via Peak Forest before heading east and west at Chinley on the Hope Valley line.

If freights ran directly from Dowlow to Edgeley via Whaley Bridge they wouldn't need to use the loop, but gradients from Buxton to Dove Holes would preclude the use of longer trains in any case.

Lengthening the loop at Buxton will have no effect on Peak Forest freights which do not go that way.

The track layout at Buxton does not permit a freight train from Dowlow to proceed directly on to the Down Main towards Edgeley. It must first enter the reversing siding, then propel back on to the Up Main, towards the station, before it can proceed over the trailing crossover to the Down Main. Said crossover is (perversely) on the station side of the junction between the Dowlow line and the Up Main.

 

[furnessvale]

The track layout at Buxton does not permit a freight train from Dowlow to proceed directly on to the Down Main towards Edgeley. It must first enter the reversing siding, then propel back on to the Up Main, towards the station, before it can proceed over the trailing crossover to the Down Main. Said crossover is (perversely) on the station side of the junction between the Dowlow line and the Up Main.

I stand corrected on that point but as there is no intention, or ability due to gradients and a weak Bridge at Whaley Bridge, to regularly use that routing with longer trains, the main point of my posting still stands.