Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Nomad8459]

The issue with 15/16 as i see it is that plans for HS2 if it arrives at Manchester will affect the proposals put forward for 15/16
- am hearing HS2 may well get to Leeds (which i also hear is to have its station redesigned again!! - didn't get it right first time really) but if it gets to Leeds it may not get to Manchester -
The 15/16 platforms are really needed along with a third track that could be squeezed in from some designs i saw between Oxford Rd and Deansgate (more of a loop really bolted onto side of viaduct) - no point doing 15/16 to hack it up for HS2 - the plans i saw for HS2 at Piccadilly were grandiose indeed ( too much so? ) - 15/16 may well be a better idea -
The fact that Leeds is scheduled for the works suggest they do expect HS2 to arrive there but again having watched real time trains recently and also from experience - so many delays still occur around Leeds and York for the TPE services - so the first redesign cant have worked well.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

All correct. The likelihood of delay is such that normal practice in the Down direction into 14, where the driver can see the train ahead in 14A, is to hang back from the mid-platform signal, coasting at very low speed, for as long possible to allow the other train to clear the platform and then be able to use 14A in the normal, and preferred, manner.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The issue with 15/16 as i see it is that plans for HS2 if it arrives at Manchester will affect the proposals put forward for 15/16
- am hearing HS2 may well get to Leeds (which i also hear is to have its station redesigned again!! - didn't get it right first time really) but if it gets to Leeds it may not get to Manchester -
The 15/16 platforms are really needed along with a third track that could be squeezed in from some designs i saw between Oxford Rd and Deansgate (more of a loop really bolted onto side of viaduct) - no point doing 15/16 to hack it up for HS2 - the plans i saw for HS2 at Piccadilly were grandiose indeed ( too much so? ) - 15/16 may well be a better idea -
The fact that Leeds is scheduled for the works suggest they do expect HS2 to arrive there but again having watched real time trains recently and also from experience - so many delays still occur around Leeds and York for the TPE services - so the first redesign cant have worked well.

Assuming the Leeds redesign in the past you refer to is the station rebuild of c.2000, it wasn't really a redesign as such, other than the resignalling and movement of some pointwork in the throat. New platforms were added on either side of the extant through lines, but these only really created capacity that was already required then. The approaches still have many conflicts along with no meaningful grade separation, along with a lack of capacity towards Garforth that isn't entirely dissimilar to the Castlefield conundrum.

Of course if either city was in Germany, all these proposals would've become a reality years ago, but I'm sounding like a broken record on that!

 

[PR1Berske]

Turing 13/14 into a Leeds-style split platform, with an A, B and maybe even who knows C, would create chaos, in my mind. The waiting area is a jumble sale as it is (incoming, outgoing, hanging around, and coffee drinking passengers all converging at a single point). Asking passengers to congregate up there before going to a holding pen downstairs is one thing, and it's a bad thing. Asking them to walk down the steps into a divided platform would be bonkers on toast. I think the "turn back for 13b" sign has vanished, perhaps as part of the demolition of all waiting areas and glass boxes, to direct passengers to, and only to, the platform they get to upon walking down the stairs. Getting passengers to treat 13/14 as two or three mini-platforms would be too chaotic a gamble.

 

[Nomad8459]

Assuming the Leeds redesign in the past you refer to is the station rebuild of c.2000, it wasn't really a redesign as such, other than the resignalling and movement of some pointwork in the throat. New platforms were added on either side of the extant through lines, but these only really created capacity that was already required then. The approaches still have many conflicts along with no meaningful grade separation, along with a lack of capacity towards Garforth that isn't entirely dissimilar to the Castlefield conundrum.

Of course if either city was in Germany, all these proposals would've become a reality years ago, but I'm sounding like a broken record on that!

The works at Leeds were fairly substantial if not wholesale redesign.. the northern bottleneck across viaduct is long standing of course.. looking South though I do wonder with so many routes how train flow isn't better... another line coming in from South in form of HS2 will add some complexity though I guess it will largely be separated from existing infrastructure to some extent.. the old Leeds wasn't great for passengers.. the current state is better but it's alarming how many delays occur between there and York.. some trains the other day were running to time but losing around 6 minutes in Leeds area but perhaps even more weird .. 9 minutes just outside York.. am sure reasons exist in that particular case but it was causing services to terminate early all over.. anyhoo.. apologies for Leeds talk but it kinda fits into the picture with 15/16 .. what with HS2 as well.... cheers for reply..

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One of the reasons the split platforms work quite well at Leeds is that there are, at least between 8/9 and between 11/12, middle tracks allowing a unit to bypass another which may be loading further down the platform. This is not the case with P13/14 at Piccadilly. When I suggested adding "overtaking" tracks to allow flexible "double-stacking" as a cheaper alternative to P15/16 a couple of weeks ago, the consensus was a resounding "no"!

 

[The Planner]

The issue with 15/16 as i see it is that plans for HS2 if it arrives at Manchester will affect the proposals put forward for 15/16
- am hearing HS2 may well get to Leeds (which i also hear is to have its station redesigned again!! - didn't get it right first time really) but if it gets to Leeds it may not get to Manchester -
The 15/16 platforms are really needed along with a third track that could be squeezed in from some designs i saw between Oxford Rd and Deansgate (more of a loop really bolted onto side of viaduct) - no point doing 15/16 to hack it up for HS2 - the plans i saw for HS2 at Piccadilly were grandiose indeed ( too much so? ) - 15/16 may well be a better idea -
The fact that Leeds is scheduled for the works suggest they do expect HS2 to arrive there but again having watched real time trains recently and also from experience - so many delays still occur around Leeds and York for the TPE services - so the first redesign cant have worked well.

You wouldn't hack 15/16 up for HS2 as it is on the opposite side of the station where the car park is.

 

[AndrewE]

You wouldn't hack 15/16 up for HS2 as it is on the opposite side of the station where the car park is.

...and the NPR alignments being talked about (in that Arup report anyway) are NW-SE under the road in front of the station or roughly E-W under the proposed HS2 platforms.

 

[Nomad8459]

You wouldn't hack 15/16 up for HS2 as it is on the opposite side of the station where the car park is.

Not the plans that i have seen then - as HS2 plans i saw was a total rebuild of Picc with nothing remaining

 

[LOL The Irony]

Not the plans that i have seen then - as HS2 plans i saw was a total rebuild of Picc with nothing remaining

No, the main trainshed is remaining.

 

[Ianno87]

One of the reasons the split platforms work quite well at Leeds is that there are, at least between 8/9 and between 11/12, middle tracks allowing a unit to bypass another which may be loading further down the platform. This is not the case with P13/14 at Piccadilly. When I suggested adding "overtaking" tracks to allow flexible "double-stacking" as a cheaper alternative to P15/16 a couple of weeks ago, the consensus was a resounding "no"!

It would probably be about 75% of the cost of 15/16 (e.g. widened viaduct) for 25% of the operational benefit (and does nothing for passenger circulation)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It would probably be about 75% of the cost of 15/16 (e.g. widened viaduct) for 25% of the operational benefit (and does nothing for passenger circulation)

As was the consensus following the discussion several pages back... my point bringing it up again is that having two trains at each side of the island at once does nothing for capacity without the ability of the rear train to overtake. All it does is double the number of people using said cramped stairwells, as you say.

I'll repeat again though, I wouldn't put it past the current DfT to authorise a scheme at 60% of the budget, even if it only provides 20% of the benefit... as long as they can say they're "investing in infrastructure in The North".

 

[Senex]

Does anyone have the information for what proportion of Piccadilly's passenger numbers are now handled on 13 and 14? Given that the services using those platforms are not all S-Bahn-type stuff but include genuine long-distance inter-city-type services, the station facilities now available on those platforms are pretty wretched, and those using them are a long way from the facilities of the main concourse. The argument for 15 and 16 is of course an operational one, providing the capacity and flexibility necessary for offering a reliable service, but a rebuild of "Piccadilly South-West" would also allow some decent passenger facilities to be included. (Incidentally, the notion of having twin island platforms with the outer faces as loops on the two running lines so that one train could enter the station as another was departing is nothing new. It is why Berlin Friedrichstraße was designed as it is almost a hundred years ago.)

 

[MarkyT]

Through side tracks with mid platfform scissors (Cambridge/Leeds style) would be fairly flexible, but would result in a layout more complex with 12 new turnouts instead of 4 plus a couple of fixed diamonds in the two scissors crossovers. It would also be far more disruptive to build I suspect, would limit train length to a greater extent and not provide any new platform space to relieve overcrowding.

The island per running line approach is bog standard at large busy stations in Europe and has been employed recently in UK for Reading remodelling as well as at London Bridge to an extent.

 

[js1000]

I've been thinking - wouldn't an cheap and cheerful solution be to just segregate platform 14 into 14a/b? I know they already are but operationally don't work like that. I assume this is what Chris Grayling means by "digital technology" (ECTS?) at Piccadilly?

Network Rail are looking to replace the canopy over platforms 13 & 14 anyway in the coming years as part of the waiting room demolition recently. But they can only do this out of operating hours because of the OHLE nearby. As part of those works they could build a new walkway from the waiting area/lounge to platform 14a.

That eliminates the over-crowding problem by segregating passenger loads on alternate services through 14 between A and B reducing the likelihood of someone falling on the track from overcrowding. Potentially simultaneously disembarking/alighting reduces dwell times and enables another TPH or two to get through the Piccadilly bottleneck and onto Oxford Road. Of course this is dependent on an optimised timetable (express ahead of stopping commuter train) and adequate carriage length. (TPE 4 carriage in 14b followed by 2 carriage Northern train in 14a)

Of course you're depending on the passenger being alert to whether they should be in 14a or b, but it already works at Birmingham New Street and Leeds so why not Piccadilly?

If would cost a snippet of the £200 million that is often bandied around for platforms 15/16 and not be costly/substantial enough to allow for it to be removed at a future point in time as part of re-configuring Piccadilly. (HS2, NPR, Metrolink, Platform 15/16 eventually etc.)

 

[Altfish]

I've been thinking - wouldn't an cheap and cheerful solution be to just segregate platform 14 into 14a/b? I know they already are but operationally don't work like that. I assume this is what Chris Grayling means by "digital technology" (ECTS?) at Piccadilly?

Network Rail are looking to replace the canopy over platforms 13 & 14 anyway in the coming years as part of the waiting room demolition recently. But they can only do this out of operating hours because of the OHLE nearby. As part of those works they could build a new walkway from the waiting area/lounge to platform 14a.

That eliminates the over-crowding problem by segregating passenger loads on alternate services through 14 between A and B reducing the likelihood of someone falling on the track from overcrowding. Potentially simultaneously disembarking/alighting reduces dwell times and enables another TPH or two to get through the Piccadilly bottleneck and onto Oxford Road. Of course this is dependent on an optimised timetable (express ahead of stopping commuter train) and adequate carriage length. (TPE 4 carriage in 14b followed by 2 carriage Northern train in 14a)

Of course you're depending on the passenger being alert to whether they should be in 14a or b, but it already works at Birmingham New Street and Leeds so why not Piccadilly?

If would cost a snippet of the £200 million that is often bandied around for platforms 15/16 and not be costly/substantial enough to allow for it to be removed at a future point in time as part of re-configuring Piccadilly. (HS2, NPR, Metrolink, Platform 15/16 eventually etc.)

But it won't solve all the problems.
Yes, it may help with the overcrowding but equally serious is the lack of platforms. I left Oxford Road yesterday for what is a 1 minute journey, it took nearer 5; we vacated a needed platform at Oxford Road, the crawled towards Piccadilly coming to a halt outside the platforms before finally proceeding to the south end of platform 13.

 

[edwin_m]

I've been thinking - wouldn't an cheap and cheerful solution be to just segregate platform 14 into 14a/b? I know they already are but operationally don't work like that. I assume this is what Chris Grayling means by "digital technology" (ECTS?) at Piccadilly?

Network Rail are looking to replace the canopy over platforms 13 & 14 anyway in the coming years as part of the waiting room demolition recently. But they can only do this out of operating hours because of the OHLE nearby. As part of those works they could build a new walkway from the waiting area/lounge to platform 14a.

That eliminates the over-crowding problem by segregating passenger loads on alternate services through 14 between A and B reducing the likelihood of someone falling on the track from overcrowding. Potentially simultaneously disembarking/alighting reduces dwell times and enables another TPH or two to get through the Piccadilly bottleneck and onto Oxford Road. Of course this is dependent on an optimised timetable (express ahead of stopping commuter train) and adequate carriage length. (TPE 4 carriage in 14b followed by 2 carriage Northern train in 14a)

Of course you're depending on the passenger being alert to whether they should be in 14a or b, but it already works at Birmingham New Street and Leeds so why not Piccadilly?

If would cost a snippet of the £200 million that is often bandied around for platforms 15/16 and not be costly/substantial enough to allow for it to be removed at a future point in time as part of re-configuring Piccadilly. (HS2, NPR, Metrolink, Platform 15/16 eventually etc.)

The problem with that is that if trains are scheduled to arrive in quick succession and use both ends, if they are slightly out of course one will land up at the wrong end of the platform. A horde of passengers will then try to get past the other passengers waiting or trying to get to the exit from the train just arrived. It happens from time to time and is proven to take longer than having all trains stop at the usual end of the platform. Removing the waiting rooms helps a bit with quicker boarding/alighting but not much with this issue as the steps are the bottleneck. An extra flight of steps will just make this worse.

 

[matacaster]

How about building a second tier above the existing viaduct leading to platforms 13&14 for 15&16? From west, line rises near Deansgate then on 2nd tier viaduct through platforms 15&16 and across the station throat followed by curves dropping onto Airport / London lines. Trains could then cross the Manchester throat from West, allowing TPE trains to drop down slope on correct side of track for Airport or go towards Guide bridge on slope. From East, higher level would need to continue above existing viaduct until room for slope on left hand side around Deansgate. Would it be expensive - yes - but it's not that difficult. Such double-deck viaducts have been a feature of M1 in Sheffield for many years and Brmingham and Los Angeles have lots of flyovers. Maybe it's time rail got serious about solving problems for the long term. On major road schemes, they tend to plan for the future with extra capacity built in, rail scehems tend to be minor increments which happen repeatedly at eventual greater cost (eg platform extensions - one coach at a time), gauge widening usually just to next bigger increment in gauge rather than UIC or whatever.

 

[AndrewE]

How about building a second tier above the existing viaduct leading ...

See post 990 on page 33, and the others about then! Someone here actually worked on the feasability study... I just wish the powers-that-be would get on and do it!

 

[Mogster]

So how long is this “capacity study” going to take?

Is this going to mean more years of doing nothing while the conjestion problems on the track and platforms get even worse? As someone who uses Oxford Road services from Wigan most weekdays it’s incredibly frustrating.

 

[The Planner]

Depends on what the study is going to look at, its a how long is a piece of string. Minimum of 6-9 months even if it started today.

 

[superkev]

Reading this months Modern Railways it looks like the new head of Network rail is continuing with the digital railway mantra as well as the consultant culture of rather than fixing problems appoint a consultant and hope the problem will go away.
If it had been south of Watford we would have had platforms 16 and 17 ages ago.
K

 

[The Planner]

Is that why Watford hasn't been fixed?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Is that why Watford hasn't been fixed?

<LIKE>

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Does anyone have the information for what proportion of Piccadilly's passenger numbers are now handled on 13 and 14?

Anecdotally, I believe its over 30%.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Reading this months Modern Railways it looks like the new head of Network rail is continuing with the digital railway mantra as well as the consultant culture of rather than fixing problems appoint a consultant and hope the problem will go away.
If it had been south of Watford we would have had platforms 16 and 17 ages ago.

This is the problem with the government. May has surrounded herself with yes men. And those yes men have surrounded themselves with yes men. It's England's 2015 RWC campaign on a bigger scale with more at risk! The puppy dog has now gone and got himself a puppy dog.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

... rather than fixing problems appoint a consultant and hope the problem will go away.

Speaking as a consulting engineer who spends 100% of their time on major railway projects, you might like to know that me and all my peers are all united in trying to fix the problems, but the sticking point is DfT. I (and many others) have devoted many hours to patiently repeating ourselves that "Digital Railway" will only go so far towards providing capacity, but will never allow trains to pass through each other nor reduce the length of time it takes to get six coaches' worth of passengers onto a two-car train with end doors.

Most of the things mentioned on this thread were actively developed and ready to go 17 years ago, it just needs implementing; any of it will do.

 

[Confused52]

Speaking as a consulting engineer who spends 100% of their time on major railway projects, you might like to know that me and all my peers are all united in trying to fix the problems, but the sticking point is DfT. I (and many others) have devoted many hours to patiently repeating ourselves that "Digital Railway" will only go so far towards providing capacity, but will never allow trains to pass through each other nor reduce the length of time it takes to get six coaches' worth of passengers onto a two-car train with end doors.

Most of the things mentioned on this thread were actively developed and ready to go 17 years ago, it just needs implementing; any of it will do.

That is very interesting. So what kind of excuses are they giving for inactivity and how have they changed over time. Is the source of the problem discernible? Do the geniuses realise the actual cost of digital railway in terms of rolling stock changes and the rest does not make a do nothing option in practice? If the are just playing a waiting game what are they waiting for?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

That is very interesting. So what kind of excuses are they giving for inactivity and how have they changed over time. Is the source of the problem discernible? Do the geniuses realise the actual cost of digital railway in terms of rolling stock changes and the rest does not make a do nothing option in practice? If the are just playing a waiting game what are they waiting for?

As I said in the New Alignments thread there is a significant political angle to getting public money spent on railway infrastructure. Shiny new trains make for good photo opportunities, rolling out new technology allows for much use of buzzwords in the accompanying spin, but infrastructure consisting of concrete and steel is very boring from both a political and PR pov.

Railways are also of little interest to the wider electorate who decide which lot get to make the decisions that count. At opposite ends of the spectrum tax cutting or spending huge sums on the NHS are both obvious vote winners. But apart from users and supporters of the railways almost nobody else is that bothered about rail spending. Not difficult to see where railways lie in the public spending pecking order. So to an extent it relies on there being sufficiently visionary people either in office or high up in the DfT to push worthwhile projects along. At the moment such people are in very short supply and while Brexit totally overshadows anything else in Westminster and Whitehall I don't expect to see anything other than yet more prevarification when it comes to approving the obviously needed improvements we discuss so keenly here.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

That is very interesting. So what kind of excuses are they giving for inactivity and how have they changed over time. Is the source of the problem discernible? Do the geniuses realise the actual cost of digital railway in terms of rolling stock changes and the rest does not make a do nothing option in practice? If the are just playing a waiting game what are they waiting for?

None and I have no idea Current working hypothesis in the Industry is that they believe that technology can answer any problem, and PCs are cheap. Personally, i'd say they are little boys playing with trains, and no amount of time-served professionals is ever going to be enough to convince them of their naivety - plus they won't be around in five year's time and don't travel by train, so why should they be worried?